Journal des débats 1986-mai-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery, on the east side, members of the special committee on rules, procedure and privileges of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories: Ted Richard, MLA, chairman of the committee; Elijah Erkloo, MLA; Arnold McCallum, MLA, and Michael Angottitauruq, MLA.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It has been arranged with the other parties that we can deviate in a minor way from the rules to introduce a very distinguished delegation that we have in the Speaker's gallery. These are guests of ours from the province of Guangdong, China. They are visiting a number of companies in Ontario and have had an opportunity to visit across our country.

I am delighted to introduce them. I apologize that they are on a tight schedule. First, Mr. Huang is the Vice-Governor of the province of Guangdong. Welcome, sir. Guangdong is a province of some 62 million people. If members ever think we have problems here, we recognize that Mr. Huang has his fair share of problems as well.

Mr. Li is the Secretary of the province of Guangdong. Mr. Lu is the chairman of the science and technology committee. Mr. Wong is the director of the energy and technology committee. Mr. Xin is the director of foreign economic relations and trade, province of Guangdong. Ms. Zhu is the interpreter and has so far prevented all international incidents.

I welcome you all to our province.

Mr. Stevenson: We were informed that this was going to occur later on. Unfortunately, our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), is not here to respond.

However, I would certainly like to bring greetings from our party. I have had the fortune to deal on previous occasions with members from China on trade matters and I have always been very impressed with the people and with their sincerity when they come to visit here and want to talk to the people of this great province.

I have had occasion to meet previously with their consul general in Ontario, and we welcome him, along with some of his staff. We certainly look forward to continuing great relationships with and visits from the people of China.

Mr. Rae: It is heartening to see that visits by many delegations from China, as well as visits by many Canadians from all walks of life and governments of all stripes to the People's Republic of China, are becoming a matter of routine. This is enormously encouraging for relations between our two countries and our two peoples.

Our party takes pride in the fact that for generations Canadians have had a strong relationship with the people of China. We take pride in the number of Chinese-Canadians who live here. We take enormous pride in the fact that we are beginning to expand our trade relationships. We welcome this delegation as we have welcomed others, Mr. Consul General.

For our part, we look forward to the visit to China by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), which I understand will take place in the fall. Given the success of previous leaders of government during their visits to Asia and the impact that has had on the domestic situation, we wish him a long and healthy voyage and a long stay away.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to draw the members' attention to a problem of health care accessibility that apparently exists all over Ontario. Some time ago, my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) raised the issue of the problems encountered by Sheri Grant of Iroquois Falls in obtaining speech pathology treatment.

Recently, we learned about the case of three-year-old Vanessa Grace Parker of Guelph, whose father was told by the local health unit that she must wait until the winter of 1987 for an assessment because of a shortage of staff. In a letter to the Guelph Mercury, a frustrated parent, Peter Holley, points out that the same health unit has some 79 children on its list waiting to be evaluated and that his son, who is in kindergarten, must wait nine to 12 months. We appeal again to the government to act on this serious problem of health care accessibility.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Mackenzie: What protection do new home buyers have in Ontario? Last October Josie and Vincent Piccolotto of Cannon Street East in Hamilton signed an offer to purchase to Veneto Construction for a new home at a cost of $105,000. They paid $30,000 down and proceeded to sell their own home in November. In February 1986, when the roof went on, they made an additional payment. The closing date was to be April 18, 1986.

Construction virtually stopped at that point and the builder now has said he cannot honour the agreement to purchase at $105,000. Lawyers have advised the Piccolottos to accept the refund of their deposit because it could take two to three years for the courtroom route and, in the meantime, they have no place to live. The Piccolottos wanted the house, but felt they had to take the deposit back to protect themselves.

The builder, Veneto Construction, has relisted the house for $139,900. The builder, Mr. Cocco, says another customer paid $10,000 over the original price. He asks why he should take the loss, and what more do the Piccolottos want; after all, they got their money back. The builder is out nothing except perhaps his reputation. The Piccolottos have probably lost $20,000 because of later entry into the housing market as well as faith in the system, a system that allows builders to take windfall profits better than it helps families to buy housing at an agreed price. Is this what we mean by the private enterprise, marketplace economy, and what is this government prepared to do?

2:10 p.m.

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Ferraro: I seem to be making a habit of rising in this House to speak about the Guelph Holody Platers junior hockey club. Today is no less an auspicious occasion, for on Saturday our Guelph Platers represented the city of Guelph and the province in fine fashion in Portland, Oregon, by winning the Memorial Cup, which is emblematic of the Canadian junior hockey championship for Canada. They did so in fine fashion by beating the team from Hull, Quebec, six to two.

For the more mature members in the House, I might point out that the last time Guelph won the junior hockey championship was in 1952, with such stalwart players as Frank and Andy Bathgate, Lou Fontinato, Ron Stewart and Dean Prentice.

This accomplishment is even more significant, acknowledging the fact that this hockey team has been in existence for only four years. It is a credit to Rob Holody, the general manager, and Jacques Martin, the coach, and all the players on the Platers hockey team. I want to conclude by thanking in particular the owner, a gentleman by the name of Joe Holody, who invested significant amounts of money, time and effort and brought much gratitude, tribute and honour to the city of Guelph and to Ontario.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Pope: On Friday, May 16, 1986, the community of Winisk was devastated by floods, in which one 76-year-old man died and one woman is missing and feared drowned. Most escaped by travelling to higher ground by canoe. According to the helicopter pilots on the scene, some swam through the snow and icy waters to reach the helicopters waiting on the ice floes, from thence to be transported to Winisk airport.

The entire community of 130 people was moved by DC-3 to Attawapiskat some 200 miles away. They are now living in what has been called a tent city and expect to be there for the next few months. Of the entire community of 60 buildings, only seven remain and all seven are seriously damaged. The chief says there may be nothing to go back to.

We are approaching the first anniversary of the natural disaster, the tornado in Barrie. On the fifth day since the happening of the flood the comparisons are revealing. Within 18 hours of the tornado, the Premier of the day, the Solicitor General of the day and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of the day were on the scene. Within 24 hours, the financial assistance package was set and funds were flowing for both public and private loss.

What do we have here? We have only one representative of the government and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) sent a --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

ADOPTION LEAVE

Ms. Bryden: Recently, I told the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) that a working couple in Toronto was ready and willing to adopt an older child to balance its family, but was unable to do so because Ontario has no law providing for adoption leave. A natural parent is entitled to 17 weeks' maternity leave under the Employment Standards Act. The minister replied that he was considering closing this gap when he had finished reviewing the whole Employment Standards Act, and something might happen some time in the future.

I would like to point out that there is such a shortage of adopting parents for older children that there is no waiting period for them in most areas. However, many children's aid societies require one of the adopting parents to take time off for a specified period when a child becomes available. Without an adoption leave law, working parents cannot be assured of their employer's permission to take leave or to be guaranteed their job when they return.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Polsinelli: On Tuesday and Wednesday last week, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) rose in this House and expressed his frustration at not being able to get responses from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to his questions, in Orders and Notices, written letters and estimates inquiries.

As parliamentary assistant to the minister, I considered it my responsibility to follow up on the member's inquiries. The member pointed out he had twice placed question 100 in Orders and Notices. What he neglected to point out is that the first time he placed it, the question was addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I would have thought the member realized that the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.

The member placed his question again, addressing it to the correct minister the second time around. A full response has been directed to cabinet office.

The member stated that he has not had responses to several letters since July 30, 1985. I beg to point out that the member is most modest. He has neglected to point out that he has written to the minister more than 70 times in less than 10 months and, in fact, a number of the letters referred to as not being answered have received replies. Given the large amount of correspondence he handles, undoubtedly they have been lost in the quicksand of the member's office. I have brought along copies of those replies for the member.

One letter in particular caught my eye. It dealt with workers in Timmins who were not wearing their safety hats as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I point out that those workers were laying sod in an open field.

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

RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Stevenson: I have learned of a probable announcement of support to the racing industry. The then Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) realized some time ago that there was need for additional support to the racing industry and commented that money should be tied to improving facilities in that industry. The former Premier, Bill Davis, appointed Frank Drea to study the industry and report back to cabinet. The Treasurer receives $67 million a year from racetrack tax plus provincial sales tax and the industry employs 50,000 workers.

2:17 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As the members will be aware, the far northern community of Winisk suffered major flooding last Friday. Tragically, one person is dead and another is missing. Ontario government searchers are still looking for that missing person.

Residents of the community have been airlifted to Attawapiskat by people from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Contrary to what we heard a few minutes ago, when ministry people were asked by the federal government to assist, they were there right away and stayed all weekend, as did the Ontario Provincial Police with their helicopter and Twin Otter.

Yesterday I flew over the area with Chief George Hunter to view the damage. George Hunter phoned me on Saturday. I had a wedding to attend, so I could not fly right away but flew there the next day. It took 10 hours to get there and that was enough. I am a minister and the MPP of this area, not the MPP for Cochrane South.

It is clear the people of Winisk face a very difficult time ahead in relocating and re-establishing their lives after this disaster. My purpose in rising to speak today is to outline for the House the role we expect the province will be playing in this process in the days ahead.

I have spoken with my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), this morning. We will be recommending to cabinet that Winisk be formally designated a disaster area as soon as possible. A local disaster relief committee will be appointed and the province will match funds raised by that committee on a ratio to be determined when a full assessment of the damage has been made.

Winisk itself is damaged beyond repair and plans that had already begun to relocate the community above the flood plain at Peawanuk will be accelerated as part of the relief effort. I will be meeting with Chief George Hunter and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Canada tomorrow morning and Thursday. We will be discussing how the two governments can cooperate to ensure that the re-establishment of Winisk begins immediately and proceeds without delay. In the meantime, every effort will be made to ensure that the displaced residents of Winisk are looked after, including the provision of clothing.

Mr. Bernier: In response to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, with respect to the disaster at Winisk, I must advise the House that I think it is a very flippant and casual way to deal with a major disaster in a small community in northern Ontario to come to this House five days late and without any presence there.

I had the privilege of speaking to a member of that community this morning at the Thunder Bay airport, and he told me the presence of Ontario government people and help were nonexistent. Here is a whole community being wiped out, and the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are busy somewhere else.

I have to tell the Premier that when a disaster occurred in Attawapiskat several years ago, the then Minister of Lands and Forests and I flew up there, we viewed the site, we passed a walking order in council and we gave them $50,000 on the spot. When the Cobalt fire occurred, the Honourable René Brunelle and I were up there with the late John Rhodes. We passed another walking order in council and gave them half a million dollars.

We did not say, "We will recommend, we will do this and we will set up a committee." How is the minister going to set up a committee in Winisk? Ninety-five per cent of the people are on welfare. He should provide them immediately with a sizeable sum of money and get on with the job. Look after the people and do it right. To flip it off so casually is inhuman.

Mr. Pouliot: Regarding the calamity that has struck the second-most remote or northern community in Ontario, the community of Winisk, in the past few days, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines should really give the House his assurance with all the sincerity at his command that not tomorrow, not soon, but now everything within his power will be done to make sure the residents of Winisk not only are airlifted out but also are relocated in a decent environment.

It is not a time for jurisprudence; it is not a time to procrastinate or to spin wheels. It is a time for sincerity and urgency.

Mr. Wildman: In regard to the tragedy at Winisk, I join with my colleague and emphasize that the minister in his statement indicated a local disaster relief committee will be appointed and the province will match funds raised by that committee in a ratio to be determined. I want the minister to recognize that this is a special situation and that at Winisk one-to-one matching grants do not make any sense. I urge him to go at least to four to one, as there is a precedent for that, and have the other local share come from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That should be counted as the local funding. I urge the minister to take that approach.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the disaster at Winisk and the circumstances facing the people who have been moved, to indicate to the government that it is our view, as has already been expressed by my colleagues, that, first, there should be cash up front. That should have been in the minister's statement today. While I notice the minister stated that clothing and so on would be provided, a cash commitment from the provincial government today would make a big difference in giving that community the realization that there will at least be a minimum commitment with respect to cash from the provincial government, as of now, not next week, and not some matching grants to be determined later.

The other comments that have been made by my colleagues indicate the concern that is shared by all members. If our own homes were destroyed in this kind of circumstance, all of us would want to know the provincial government is there, as the federal government is, because its particular responsibilities are there.

If any of us on this side of the House can do anything to move the process along in terms of getting people moved and getting them the housing, clothing, help and all the circumstances they need, our party is only too willing to join in that effort. I know we will be willing to do as we did in the circumstances of the Barrie disaster: name one of our members, together with a member from the Conservative caucus, to serve together as a three-party group that will oversee the relief work. Let us get the money into those people's hands today and not put it off until next week.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable members will recall, in August the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I put together a staff group from our two ministries to look at agricultural finance. We wanted to see what steps we could take in the short term and in the long term to alleviate some of the financial pressures on the agricultural community.

The interministerial task force on agricultural finance has completed its evaluation. It has made many thorough and imaginative recommendations contained in the report, which I am tabling today. Some of the recommendations in this report form the basis for improvements in three financial assistance programs announced in last week's provincial budget.

The key point the task force identified is that governments can mitigate the most harmful effects of the transition to new economic realities, but they cannot reverse trends in the global economy. Government's role should be to ensure that the industry is strong enough to take advantage of emerging market opportunities.

The report identified major problem areas in the agricultural sector: cost and availability of credit, high capital requirements for agriculture, commodity prices and incomes, and farm management. Other issues that are also affecting farm financing were difficulties in adjusting output to match market conditions, excessive debt loads and the availability of social and employment services in rural areas. Among the recommendations for immediate action were enrichment and expansion of the beginning farmer assistance program, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the farm operating credit assistance program.

In the longer term, the task force called for an ongoing review of current assistance programs, exploration of alternative farming arrangements such as shared cropping and leasing and a review of credit legislation -- in particular, section 178 of the Bank Act as it relates to the Personal Property Security Act.

Since the government of Canada is the major player when it comes to long-term agricultural credit, the task force also examined Ottawa's role. In this area, recommendations suggested that the federal government examine guarantees for private mortgages through the Farm Credit Corp., expand that corporation's lending to include assets such as equipment and change the federal Farm Improvement Loans Act to include guarantees on fixed-rate loans.

As I mentioned, some of the recommendations in the task force report have already been incorporated as part of our new provincial budget, and we will be evaluating the application of the other recommendations of the task force in the weeks and months to come.

Mr. Stevenson: I wish to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We welcome the extension of the three programs that were named. They are not terribly new and imaginative. One was brought into place by the present government, but the beginning farmer assistance program and Ontario farm adjustment assistance program were brought into existence by the previous Progressive Conservative government.

The findings of the interministerial task force sound remarkably familiar. If the minister cares to read the report of the federal-provincial committee that was set in place by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) not all that long ago, he will find some remarkable similarities.

I point out to the government that, just as I had expected, the interministerial task force has not even considered the United States farm bill in its deliberations. Here we have probably the biggest single issue that is aggravating extensively the commodities price situation faced by all Canadian farmers, and it is not even mentioned in the report of the task force.

The thing that made me suspect it had not considered it was that just three to four weeks ago the minister finally established a committee to look at the implications of the US farm bill on Ontario agriculture. We have farmers with most of their crops in the ground. They have already made all the production decisions for this year. They have had to make them on the basis of the factors in place in the marketplace, the US farm bill being one; and here we have a government task force report that has not even considered the implications of the US farm bill.

In the grains and red meat area, Saskatchewan and Alberta are our major competitors, the other big players in Canada. Both of those governments already have provincial assistance programs in place that respond directly to the effects of the US farm bill. Even the federal government has made announcements in Western Canada and in Ontario that ease the impact of the US farm bill on farmers today.

The only major player in the agricultural industry that has yet to respond is Ontario. It is not surprising to me that there is no further word on the decisions of this government to deal with the US farm bill when our cash-hungry farmers have had to deal with it already.

Mr. Ramsay: On this side of the House, the third party welcomes the introduction of this task force on agricultural finance. I point out to the minister, though, that nothing in here addresses the problem of the farms that we are losing today and will be losing tomorrow and shortly down the road. I ask the minister whether he will consider some mechanism, which I will leave to him, to stop the haemorrhaging that we have of the farms in this province every day. It is something we have to act on immediately.

In looking at the long-term problems, the task force says we must examine the current assistance programs. I suggest to the minister that just doing that does not really address the problem. We have some very good Band-Aids in place today, and I support him on that, but we are still not addressing the problem of coming up with some sort of long-term finance for the province. We always abdicate to the federal government. It is time we looked at the Province of Ontario Savings Office or some other mechanism so that Ontario will get into long-term farm finance, instead of just the federal government.

Mr. Grossman: It is indeed a shame that the people of Winisk are not as important to this government as the people of Barrie and Field were to the previous government.

2:32 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier with regard to the Ontario Medical Association negotiations. Can he tell us whether his government and the OMA will explore ways this evening to improve accessibility to the system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not attending that meeting this evening. I think the Leader of the Opposition should talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I will refer this to him.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Premier refer the question to the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think that we on this side of the House have ever started talking about meetings, whether they are scheduled or not scheduled or whether there is any particular content to them. We have never found that to be helpful. The Leader of the Opposition expressed some concern about negotiating in public, and we have maintained our position on not discussing particular agenda items in public.

Mr. Grossman: I will address the supplementary to the Minister of Health. It is ironic that, having answered dozens and dozens of questions in the House, the Premier today chooses to lob this over to the man who has been charged only with carrying the luggage and the suitcases to the meetings. However, if, when the going gets tough, the Premier wants to duck out, we understand and we will ask the question of the Minister of Health.

Is the minister not prepared at least to disclose to the public, not what the government is putting on the table, not what the OMA is putting on the table, not the details of how much money the government has offered out of the Canada Health Act money to the doctors, but in negotiations surrounding a bill regarding, to use the minister's own words, accessibility, that he will be discussing improved accessibility this evening? Can the minister not acknowledge that is what he will be discussing this evening?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member knows full well -- and in fact on one occasion or another he has supported the idea of an end to extra billing as a way of improving accessibility -- that the whole issue which we are talking about really revolves around those people who are being punished for being ill by having to pay more than what is provided for under the insurance benefits schedule.

What we are doing and what we hope to accomplish with these discussions and negotiations is to arrive at a way to ensure that the patients who require medical attention are not punished by having to have their wallets examined or having to pay more for insured benefits.

Mr. Grossman: The only proposal I have heard which would punish people for getting sick is the proposal put out by the Premier to introduce the concept of what he called a good idea, a health tax. If the minister and the Attorney General are negotiating to avoid the burden of paying extra when people get ill, that is, accessibility, would the minister not acknowledge that the doctors have already agreed to end extra billing for seniors, people on public assistance and emergency care patients, which covers 50 per cent of all cases? If the doctors are coming this evening to have further discussions with regard to further steps they can take, would the minister not agree that it is tantamount to irresponsibility and bargaining in bad faith to put out an ultimatum and threaten to cut off negotiations when that progress is being made?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First, the member is again in error, as is his usual habit, when he tries to assess how many people are being excluded under the four-point proposal which has been thrown into the public by the OMA. It is our analysis that probably 30 per cent of those people it was talking about extra billing would be affected by that.

From our standpoint, we talk about the population of this province as a whole. We cannot countenance people who are ill and in need of assistance being required to pay more than the insured services. It is the very basic premise of providing medical care in this province that people should not have to have their wallets examined before they get the necessary medical treatment. That has been at the basis of this whole question for a long time and we are not going to back down on that.

It is very evident to me that the member's analysis is again wrong. It means, to me in any event, that he really does not understand the critical need to ensure that every patient in this province can have access to the medical practitioner of his or her choice.

Mr. Grossman: We not only understand that but we also understand the skill of negotiation, which is not silly ultimatums put forward by the Premier which will cause a strike in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We already have dioxins in Ontario's drinking water. Over the weekend, we found that our food is a much larger source of exposure to these toxic chemicals. When the Minister of Agriculture and Food was questioned on this issue last fall, his answer was merely that he was going to monitor and test. Monitoring and testing seem to be the only action the ministry has taken. In view of the reports issued over the weekend, what is the minister actually willing to do to reduce the levels of these chemicals in our food?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The answer was in the speech from the throne when we indicated we are going to put up a modern food-testing lab which could be operational within the next two years. We are also going to expand the pesticides lab. Right now, we are limited in the amount of testing we can do, as is the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment has been conducting tests of water for dioxin levels, but it has not been accustomed to testing foods for dioxin levels; this is relatively new.

I must remind the member that this situation is not unique to Ontario. Dioxins are being found in food throughout the world, and we cannot be an island unto ourselves. We will do what we can, and I hope other jurisdictions will follow the lead of our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in trying to reduce contaminants in the atmosphere. The fact is that many of the contaminants are blown by wind and dropped by rain that comes from many other jurisdictions. We have to work with other jurisdictions to try to reduce dioxin levels. We cannot do it in Ontario alone.

Mr. Grossman: Last fall the minister said in response to a question on this very topic that he was monitoring and testing. Is he now telling the House that he is going to begin testing and that the information he supplied to the House last fall, that he was monitoring and testing our food, perhaps was incorrect? What is his position?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the member well knows, we have been continuously testing such products as meat and milk for polychlorinated biphenyls. We asked the Ministry of the Environment to test fruit, and it has been testing apples since we first heard that there might be a dioxin problem with such fruits as apples. The test results have not revealed the same kind of results the Toronto study revealed.

The Minister of the Environment is attending a meeting today, I believe in the United States, and he will be meeting with the author of the Toronto study to gain more facts. He will be back in the House tomorrow and will make a statement on dioxin levels in food as reported by the press. We test meat and milk, and we have been testing apples since we heard there could be a dioxin problem.

Mr. Grossman: I thought the minister said earlier that he was not testing meat and other products, except apples, for dioxin. If he were testing for dioxin, why did he not turn up the same levels the study has turned up? Is he taking the position, as the minister has with drinking water, that there are safe levels of dioxin in Ontario's food? Is there such a thing as safe levels?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Our tests have definitely indicated that the amounts of contaminants found in food, not only of dioxin but also of PCBs and other contaminants, are well below the standards set by the Department of National Health and Welfare and well below the standards set by the world testing organizations. We do not want to discount one little bit any kind of study or any kind of finding, but the tests we have been doing indicate the levels are far below the acceptable standards.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, who knows that Ontario and this Legislature will be hosting Bishop Tutu next week. I would like to ask him whether he is aware that the Ontario municipal employees retirement system -- OMERS, the pension fund -- has investments worth more than $400 million in firms currently dealing with South Africa. Does he not feel it would be not simply an appropriate gesture but also an appropriate policy of this government to indicate by means of regulation that all investments in companies dealing with South Africa should from this point on be sold by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member raises a very good point. It is something I have thought about and have even discussed with my colleagues. As he knows, a number of other agencies of the crown, or at least transfer agents such as universities and others with endowment funds, hold securities registered in South Africa. It was our view that to bring in a policy probably would be unenforceable and that we could not extend a real enforcement mechanism to make it viable.

I am mindful of what the member says, and I think the views he expresses are constructive. As the member knows, we appoint most of the OMERS representatives. I could be wrong about that, but I believe we appoint most of the board. They act independently; we do not give them investment advice. However, it would be most constructive for me to send a copy of the Hansard of this discussion in the Legislature to them for their consideration.

Mr. Rae: We are looking for a little more than that. The Premier should be aware that section 14 of the act involving that pension fund makes it clear that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations governing the administration of the fund, including the receipt, deposit and payment of all moneys of the fund. The powers are there. We are not talking about general powers with respect to other bodies. We are speaking directly with respect to the money that is invested in corporations where one can decide to either sell or keep those securities.

Is the Premier aware that between 1979 and 1984, Dominion Securities Pitfield, along with McLeod Young Weir, were the major Canadian players in the underwriting of nearly $1 billion on behalf of the South African government and two of its state-owned agencies and that these bonds will mature between 1987 and 1997? Can the Premier tell us whether the government of Ontario is planning to change any of its dealings with respect to Dominion Securities Pitfield, which most recently did a major study on Suncor, given its work with respect to investments in South Africa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I was not aware of the facts that the member has raised in this House. That could very well apply to a number of other brokerage houses in this province. I do not know the answer to whether they deal in South African securities or whether they have made a moral statement in this regard.

I understand the points the member raises with respect to Dominion Securities Pitfield; they were doing a valuation on the Suncor situation. McLeod Young Weir was instrumental in the purchase of the Suncor shares and advised the previous government to purchase. The member will recall that. It just proves no one is perfect all the time.

It is something I am prepared to review. We have to look at it in terms of its broad brush, whether it is just OMERS or other pension funds. I do not know whether the teachers' superannuation fund or any of the other funds are carrying any of these securities. What about university endowments, hospital endowments and a number of others?

I am one of those who believe we should make moral statements on things we believe in, but we also have to be most cognizant of the limitations of our power. It is something I will review and discuss with the honourable member and other members who are interested in the subject.

Mr. Rae: When Bishop Tutu addresses this assembly, I know he will want to be able to say with pride that he is speaking in an assembly that has decided to do something with respect to investment in South Africa. I hope we will be in a position to do that.

I wonder whether the Premier is aware that the South African Council of Churches passed the following resolution at its national conference in June 1985: "We express our belief that disinvestment and similar economic pressures are now called for as a peaceful and effective means of putting pressure on the South African government to bring about these fundamental changes this country needs."

If that is the position of the South African Council of Churches, and I hear the Premier saying he wants to do something, he should look at the province's investment in Massey-Ferguson and at the dealings with Rio Algom, which has an extensive mine in Namibia. He should look at areas where right now Ontario does not have clean hands, where we can take some steps that are not simply steps of general principle but ones that will have a practical effect on the events in South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member speaks on this issue very sincerely and passionately, he will understand the potential broad reach of some of the things he is suggesting. It is one of those things: When does one stop?

The member knows this province has taken a strong stand with respect to the purchase of South African wines. That is something we had the power to do, and we made the moral decision to so do. The member is aware that we also made the decision as a government that we would not allow South African products to be tendered on contracts awarded by this government. Those are two significant and substantial things that have been done that we could control and have controlled. Other governments have talked about them, but they have chosen not to make those decisions in the past.

I will review with officials how much power we have in this regard and how wide our reach is in these matters. I am prepared to review it and discuss it in future with the honourable member.

2:50 p.m.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware that 150 students who were to be working this summer at the Kidd Creek mine have recently received letters indicating their services will not be required this summer? Is he aware of widespread rumours that have been reported in the media in Timmins with respect to an impending announcement by Kidd Creek officials on possible layoffs? Is the minister aware of any layoffs that may take place at Kidd Creek? Can he give us any information? Will he please share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not have any details concerning those layoffs. If the member has some, I will be very pleased to receive them.

Mr. Rae: I was afraid that was going to be the answer. Is the minister aware that Falconbridge, the recent purchaser of the mine at Kidd Creek, has indicated there may well be an announcement later this week? As a minister, how does he feel constantly being taken by surprise with respect to these layoff announcements, which have come rapidly across northern Ontario with very little warning?

What steps does the minister intend to take to stop the layoffs and to make sure there is at least a decent notice period for the community, for the workers involved and for the government of Ontario, which is so frequently left having to pick up the pieces? What is the minister going to do to start getting tough with respect to these?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In most cases, we are privy to most of these layoffs. Some of them we can solve and help; some we cannot. As I stated before, if the member has details, I will be very pleased to have them and to look into them.

Mr. Ramsay: With the free fall we are seeing in the northern economy, does the minister not think it is time that we, and especially the government, started to take a proactive stance to halt these layoffs and to build an economy up north so we can live there and be prosperous, like the people in southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member will find this government is becoming very proactive and will be doing something about the problems in the north.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Attorney General. Does he stand by and endorse remarks made by one of his aides, who said to the media last week that his government can declare doctors' services essential and outlaw their right to strike? To quote his aide: "The Legislature is almighty. It can do what it wants." Does the Attorney General associate himself with those remarks and that statement of intent?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did not see the quotation to which the member has referred. If he would like to send it over, I would be glad to take a look at it. I do not agree that the Legislature is almighty.

Mr. Harris: Does the Attorney General agree that he is?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That has just demonstrated the point.

Mr. Speaker: Was that the supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: We know the answer to that one. I will send the quotation over to the Attorney General.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) should take it over.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let him bring it over.

Mr. Grossman: What is the member nervous about? I will hand it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to take over.

Is anyone in the Attorney General's ministry currently considering any options, drafting any legislation or looking at any way in which doctors' strikes could be ruled illegal?

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have looked generally at the question. I do not think it will be necessary to undertake any such steps. If it is, we will be able to turn to it when the time comes.

As far as I can tell, there is no suggestion in the press at present that the doctors have indicated they will withdraw emergency services. I expect that if they feel strongly, they will continue to provide emergency services. I understand the member for Brantford, who speaks for his party on this issue, strongly supports that attitude.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who today seems to be somewhat uncertain as to what monitoring and testing his ministry is doing with respect to contaminants in food.

Last December, when the federal government issued and then withdrew its Storm Warning pamphlet, the minister was very clear in his response to questions. He said: "I had indicated we had monitored milk and fruit. I do not see any reason why we cannot make that report available."

Why have we had no reports made available to this House from this ministry about the testing being done for food? In view of the fact that the Toronto Board of Health, the International Joint Commission, Environment Canada and the Royal Society of Canada are all finding contaminants in food, is his ministry finding the same results?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The ministry now monitors milk, meats, fruits and vegetables for pesticides and other residues to the extent that our current pesticide laboratory permits. One of the reasons we are hoping to expand the pesticide lab is that we know we are limited in what testing we can do.

Since we first heard there could be dioxin problems, we asked the Ministry of the Environment if it would test apples for any dioxin levels. The Ministry of the Environment did that, and it did not come up with the same results as the Toronto study.

The Ministry of the Environment found only octachlorinated dioxins, which is the least toxic form, at trace levels. These were found at seven and 46 parts per trillion, which is 5,000 to 25,000 times below the recommended maximum daily intake figure for these compounds. Milk samples are being analysed, and the results will be available in six weeks time.

Mrs. Grier: I hope the minister will table those results, because I think they would be of interest to all members of this House. In view of his commitment last December to do that, I hope he will do that.

Has the minister seen the report that was put out by the Toronto Board of Health? If so, does he disagree with its finding that fresh fruit is now the major nonoccupational route of human exposure to selected persistent chemicals in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My ministry and I have not seen a copy of that report.

Mr. Grossman: Have you not seen it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, we have not. We have not seen a copy of the report.

Mr. McClellan: We will send him a Xerox.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Good. As I indicated, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will be pursuing further the Toronto study, and I trust that is the report to which the member refers, at his meeting in Michigan this afternoon. He will be talking with the author of that report, and I am sure he will have some facts to give to the House tomorrow. I have not seen a copy of the report.

Mr. Stevenson: I have a further question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the past when there was food contamination, very quick studies were done on the particular foodstuff in question and a report made available very quickly. Is the minister suggesting today that there is less testing being done on the food supply in Ontario than has been done in the past?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, I am not saying we are doing less testing, but our facilities are such that we cannot do as much testing as we would like, and that is the reason we are hoping to get an expanded pesticide lab in place before long. We continue to test meat, milk, fruit and vegetables for any kind of pesticide residues and any polychlorinated biphenyl residues that are brought to our attention. The member well knows that when the PCB problem in milk first came to our attention we immediately started to test. We found the traces of PCB were very small. They were well below the standards that are set.

Mr. Stevenson: I find this a little confusing. The minister is saying pesticides and dioxins in the same breath; dioxin is not a pesticide used in Ontario agriculture. Is the minister saying from the data he has seen or that has been reported that most of this comes from the Ontario production system or that it is transported by weather? Exactly how is this showing up in Ontario food?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is my understanding that in the past there have never been any studies of dioxin residues in food and that this has come to the front just recently. When I first heard there was a dioxin problem in fruit, I immediately asked the Ministry of the Environment to conduct tests on apples to see what results it was able to get. The results it got did not coincide with the results of this Toronto study. It must be remembered that this is a preliminary report, and even the report said far more monitoring and testing have to be done to come up with any kind of reliable results. These are nothing more than preliminary results. We will continue to monitor to the best of our ability. We are hopeful that when we get our food lab and pesticide lab in place, we will be able to do far more testing to ensure the safety of all.

Mr. Rae: It is appalling that the minister has admitted he had not even seen this report before coming into the House today. That is a shocking statement. It is available to the press and it is available to members of the House. I do not know why the minister would come into the House and make a statement with respect to a report he has just admitted he has not even seen. Will the minister tell us why he has not published the information he now is quoting in the House? Why was information not made available until it was flushed out of him today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It was only within the past few weeks that any testing was done for dioxin in fruit in this province. It was brought to our attention not long ago that there could be a problem with dioxin levels. We asked the Ministry of the Environment to do a test. The member will have to ask the Minister of the Environment whether the ministry has completed tests to its satisfaction. The minister can be questioned tomorrow about what kind of testing for dioxin levels in fruit has been done in the past, with what results, and what is being done now. It is the Ministry of the Environment that is doing the testing.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that the study found that PCB levels were higher in Ontario and Quebec beef than in beef from other provinces, that PCBs were found in whole milk from southern Ontario with an average concentration of 0.889 parts per billion and that PCBs were found in mothers' breast milk with average PCB levels in Ontario being the highest, which could put infants at risk and could potentially affect brain development? Is the minister aware of these facts? Why was he not here today with a statement to this House with respect to the evidence that has come forward in this study? It has major implications for the future of health care in this province. Why is he not making a statement on it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I think the member is confusing PCBs with dioxins. Is he asking me about dioxins or about PCBs?

Mr. Rae: No, I am not. I asked about the whole study.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As far as I am concerned, any tests done for PCBs in milk were revealed to the public. As far as dioxins are concerned, the testing has been done only recently and has been brought to our attention in very recent times. To the best of my knowledge, the Ministry of the Environment is still testing fruit, such as apples, for dioxin levels. When the tests are completed, the Minister of the Environment will likely reveal the results. From the information I have been given by the Minister of the Environment, the dioxin levels in apples are well below the standards set by the Department of National Health and Welfare and by world food organizations.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Poirier: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines pertaining to the Winisk flooding. I would like to know how many times the minister has met with Chief George Hunter and what the specifics of Chief Hunter's request were to the Ontario government in general and to the minister specifically.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would remind my friends the members for from Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and Kenora (Mr. Bernier) that there was a flood last year at Fort Albany, and I did not see them over there. They were campaigning. I left my campaign and went there last year because I care for the people.

First, I got a phone call Friday afternoon at 4:30 from Ernie Sutherland, the chief of the Moose Factory band, from Chief Hunter and from Pat Chilton, the executive officer of the Muskegog Cree council, telling me what was happening. I told them my son was getting married Saturday, and they said, "Okay, come Monday." They wanted me to come Monday. I said: "I will be there Monday at seven o'clock. I will leave Hearst." They said everything was under control with the Ministry of Natural Resources people, the Ontario Provincial Police and the feds.

Second, I talked to Chief Hunter just a few minutes before I arrived here. He is coming tomorrow night with his wish list. For him it is a new airport on a new site. Second, he wants to relocate the village completely.

Mr. Harris: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: Why not? He asked one question; then there is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No supplementary. The honourable members passed some new rules a very short time ago. Therefore, I cannot allow a supplementary.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Why has he decided to test apples for dioxin and not other products?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Apples are a product that we grow to a far greater extent than some of the other fruits, such as peaches and what have you. They are grown throughout various parts of the province. This is the fruit that would have probably the most exposure to any contaminants in the environment, and this is the reason I asked that apples be tested. If there is any indication on apples, it may well be that there are also some traces of the contaminant on other fruit. Apples are the one fruit we grow in large quantities and they would certainly have the exposure to any of the contaminants in the atmosphere.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell the Legislature and the people of this province that he had enough concern about dioxin perhaps being in apples that he spent a modest amount, and it must have been very little money, to test apples, but not enough concern about dioxin perhaps being in other products, that he would wait until the apple study was done and then worry about dioxin in other products? Is his position that he was worried about dioxin, so he tested apples; but he was not worried enough about dioxin that he would test meat and everything else?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If there were no traces of dioxin in apples, it would only follow that there would be no traces, or very little trace, of dioxin in other fruits.

It is the Ministry of the Environment that does the tests for dioxin. In the pesticides lab of my ministry, we test only pesticide residues on fruit. It is the Ministry of the Environment that tests this. When I first heard there could be a problem, I asked whether it would test apples. It did test apples and found that the traces of dioxin in apples were well below the standards acceptable to the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Mr. Rae: There are no standards for dioxin.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, there are. National Health and Welfare indicates --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:10 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with regard to a statement he made on May 2 to the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, which was quoted in the District News. Since the minister indicated to the NOMA convention, when it was pointed out that the price of gasoline was 56 cents a litre in Red Lake as of May 1, that his ministry would be setting up hearings on the high gasoline prices in northern Ontario in the next two weeks, and the two weeks are already up, can he indicate where and when these hearings are going to take place?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will answer that tomorrow. I will bring the list of the meetings tomorrow. It should start this week or next week. I will check on it. It is supposed to be on.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the minister must realize that while he and his colleagues continue to procrastinate on this issue, the difference in gasoline prices is getting even more extreme with competition in the Toronto area bringing the prices down to about 35 cents a litre while prices in the north remain at 45 cents to 55 cents a litre. Why has the minister not yet consulted with northerners on this issue, and when is he going to take action to protect consumers and businesses in northern Ontario that pay such a tremendous penalty for their gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Those meetings will take place. I am meeting with all the members from the northeast in Timmins on May 31 on that issue, and we will see. I know what the member means because I am from the north. I buy quite a bit of gas and I know how much it costs. There should be something positive come out of those public meetings, where everybody will have the chance to speak up.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister indicated earlier he had certain information that caused him to investigate and test apples. Can he disclose to the members of this House the source of that information?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We had a briefing about the tests and the results from one of the people on the study committee, and we also met with a --

Mr. Grossman: Which study committee?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It was an International Joint Commission and Toronto study. We met with one of the people who was conducting the study, and he brought to our attention the kind of results that might be forthcoming. Based on the short briefing we had, I asked if we could have apples tested for dioxin levels. I have not had a copy of the report cross my desk nor has it been brought to any of my ministry people.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell this House that someone involved with this very same study indicated to him some months ago concern about dioxin in Ontario's food and that his only response at that time was to test dioxin in apples? Is that what the minister is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am saying we were not meeting about this problem, but one of the things we happened to discuss was the study that was being done. We got a short briefing on the study itself, and there were signs of dioxins appearing in our foods, not only in Ontario but also throughout the world. When I first learned there could be --

Mr. Grossman: When was that?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: A matter of three weeks ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the members take their seats.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Tenants in Ontario have been waiting with hope for rent review legislation since the accord was signed last May. The minister's own landlord and tenant advisers have been waiting since they tabled their report over a month ago. We are all waiting. When is the minister going to introduce his new and improved bill? Will the bill faithfully reflect the recommendations of the Rent Review Advisory Committee?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We will very shortly be bringing forward the bill for second reading and it will reflect some of the changes that have been recommended by the tenants' and landlords' advisory committee.

Mr. Reville: The Rent Review Advisory Committee has recommended that the government provide 3,000 nonprofit and co-operative housing units annually, in addition to current commitments, until every person in Ontario can be housed. In the light of the minister's answer to my question, why then is there not one word or one dime in the budget for those additional housing units? Is the government making a mockery of its own process?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me remind the member that $500 million was projected in the previous budget and the commitment in the recently tabled budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) showed that we will be right on target, producing 6,700 nonprofit housing units this year.

Mr. Reville: What about the 3,000 extra?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member can see, we have a project to extend that to 6,700 for the next five years. The recommendation of the landlords and tenants suggests an additional 3,000. It is something we will look at very seriously.

ELECTRICIANS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As late as this weekend, a number of my constituents who are affected by the electricians' strike have come into my constituency office, as I am sure people have gone to many other constituency offices. Can the minister tell the House the status of the present negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As all members know, province-wide bargaining is now under way and has been for some time. The honourable member raises the point that in the case of the electricians, and today in the case of the tile workers, legal strike action has commenced. Officials of my ministry, both conciliators and mediators, have been involved since the outset and remain involved with the parties. We are obviously hopeful that the strikes of the electricians and the tile workers will indeed be short.

I can tell the House that the bricklayers reached an agreement, which I understand was ratified in the past few days. Whether the settlement in that agreement will set a pattern and other settlements will follow is hard to tell at this stage. However, I assure the member that the most senior officials of the ministry, including the assistant deputy minister in charge of industrial relations, have been in constant touch with the parties and remain available to lend any assistance to lead the parties to successful conclusions in the bargaining.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Rowe: I had a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), but in the absence of the three ministers of Health -- the minister, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- who are all out of the House right now, I shall direct my question to the Treasurer, if he is in.

Interjections.

Mr. Rowe: He is in the wings.

I am sure the Treasurer is aware of the problems the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie is experiencing these days. Here is another case. A 31-year-old woman lay on a stretcher in the emergency department for three days. Before we have more of these dehumanizing cases, when can we expect to hear that the Treasurer will act to authorize the Minister of Health to give a start date for a new hospital in Barrie?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member knows the commitment made in the budget. He knows that was money in addition to all the previous commitments. We also said in the budget that the Minister of Health would be announcing the beginning of this five-year program of rejuvenation and rebuilding. He will make that statement as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Rowe: On April 18, 1986, the district health council advised the Minister of Health, when it forwarded the Teasdale report to him, to go ahead with the new hospital in Barrie. The Treasurer has said he has more than $400 million for our area. How long is his government going to continue to hide behind the district health council?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The district health councils were a creation of our predecessors, just as our predecessors on more than one occasion promised the hospital to which the member is referring. I can assure him that when the Minister of Health makes his statement in this connection, if the building is justified, as I presume it is, it will be a part of the statement. The member knows district health councils make recommendations to the ministry. That is their responsibility. The minister then must decide what action is to be taken.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult with all these out-of-order interjections. I will wait.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the use of contingent electric shock therapy in the institutions for the developmentally handicapped in the province.

It has come to my knowledge that they are using this therapy at Cedar Springs, Durham Centre and D'Arcy Place, whereas at Rideau Centre, Woodstock, Huronia Regional Centre and any of the other institutions they are not. Does the minister support the use of electric wands or cattle prods in his institutions or does he see them, as I do, as a means of replacing more staff-intensive and more humane therapy for the severely disturbed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Shortly after joining this ministry, I asked for that very procedure to be explained to me and that a report be prepared indicating when, where and under what conditions it was used. It was explained that it was used at some facilities. As a matter of fact, it is down to two now. My understanding is that 23 residents had this used on them in the past year, which would represent approximately one half of one per cent of all our residents.

The difficulty we have from a professional point of view is that there is not general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists as to the effectiveness of this procedure. The difficulty they have, however, is that a small number of our residents are very self-destructive. They are attempting to find ways to avoid this happening and to decrease the amount of damage residents do to themselves. A study is under way right now. A report has been received; it has been reviewed to see whether there are other procedures or practices that can be used instead.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know there is disagreement. The minister is quoted as saying that he believes "the result of the review will be fewer intrusive procedures being carried out and a more rigorous regulation of staff conducting the treatments." The minister knows there are already rigorous guidelines out there for the staff. He indicated that only 23 people had been subjected to this horrendous kind of treatment. Even if there is disagreement on the minister's panel, will he not come out soon and say that he is opposed to this and that in 1986 in Ontario, he finds it intolerable, as we do?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the reasons I asked that the review be done was that my initial reaction was opposition. I think it would be the initial reaction of most people who are not familiar with the procedure and the particular type of residents who, from a medical point of view, may actually require something like this.

The difficulty I have, and the difficulty I would share with my honourable colleague, is that when I have gone into the facilities and talked to the front-line staff, not just the professionals, they have clearly indicated to me that there are times and there are residents for whom this procedure is the only thing that works.

It is very easy for me or for my honourable colleague to say, "Do not do it." I am not in that situation; I do not have to deal with a particular incident. I do not like it, and I will go as far as I can, as will my staff and the professionals, in finding an alternative system. However, I will not say to the staff or to the front-line people in the facilities that they cannot do one thing until we have something that works in its place.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, members of the Legislature and people in the municipalities learned, through another of this government's infamous rotating leaks to the media, of a plan to allow local option in determining whether beer and wine will be sold in grocery stores. Since the minister is supposed to be representing municipal interests, will he please tell the House where he stands on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: On this side of the House, it is not where I stand; it is where the government stands. The member opposite will find out as soon as an answer is given to him.

Mr. Runciman: It is obvious that this so-called consultative government has once again failed to consult -- another triumph of rhetoric over substance.

Will the minister commit himself to making his actions match the government's rhetoric and consult with the municipalities to ensure that their views are conveyed to his cabinet colleagues prior to any final decision being made on the local option proposal?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure not only this member but also this House that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will be consulted as far as the distribution of beer and wine throughout this province is concerned. I will be meeting with AMO very shortly, and this is on my agenda.

NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs. It falls in line with the question the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has asked, except this time it deals with nursing home residents.

Will the minister investigate the following memo, which appeared at Rockcliffe Nursing Home in Scarborough? I will read part of it. The gentleman's name is used, and it says he "is not allowed to change his pants during the day. His pants are to be kept in the back room. If he wets himself, he must stay in wet clothes in his room or in his underwear in his room till the next day, when he will be given another chance to achieve continence. If this is not done, we will not be able to solve the problem. When this happens, trays must be ordered for him to eat in his room."

The list goes on of the type of adversive therapy that is used for this gentleman in this nursing home. Is it not time we had an amendment to the Nursing Homes Act that brought in a bill of rights for patients in this province?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: It is not a pleasure to respond to a question like this, because I agree that the conditions described by the member for Windsor-Riverside are deplorable. I will take the question under advisement, discuss it with the Minister of Health and report back to the member as soon as possible.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I should point out to the minister that I phoned the nursing home and confirmed that this was put up in the nursing home. Although it has since been withdrawn, it points to the mentality prevalent in some of our nursing homes in the province.

Does the minister not agree with me that it is a basic right in the nursing homes of this province that confidentiality should be respected and therefore these types of things should not be posted and that individual dignity should be respected? Does he not agree that if all this is confirmed when he investigates, charges should be laid against this nursing home?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I can only submit that I will take the question under advisement. In matters of confidentiality, there may well be some factor of which I am not aware, wherein there may be the intent to do something positive for the patient. Without full details, I am not prepared to answer further than to say we will investigate and report back to the member.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Ottawa Centre.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the question was directed to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who in turn redirected it to me. I think it was asked last Thursday, May 15.

The member should note from statements made in this House on May 5 that the government has expressed its concern about the loss of rental housing from severances of row housing and that the implementation of this policy will be accomplished under the Planning Act rather than under Bill 11. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) has written to all municipalities outlining the new procedures regarding severances of rental properties. The member may wish to direct questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs if she is unsure about the specifics of how the government policy of severances will be implemented.

Ms. Gigantes: If I can repeat the main item of my question of last week, it is to know whether, with whatever kind of measure is brought forward by whatever ministry, severances that are now not complete will be allowed to go ahead without due process.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, the procedures for the severance considerations are with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he may be able to respond in more detail as to how severances are dealt with.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has indicated on a number of occasions, as has the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that they will be active participants in the free trade negotiations between Ottawa and Washington. Will the minister indicate to this House today not only that he is prepared to share with this House information he may have in his possession with respect to the free trade matter but also that he will include members of this House in those discussions so we can be active participants in responses given on behalf of the province to the federal government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the member knows, negotiations are to start this week with preliminary discussions. We are constantly in touch with the Premiers of other provinces, and our trade negotiator is sitting in on most of these meetings. I can assure the member that we will try to keep the House advised as these talks go along.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that notice was given last week by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that he was dissatisfied with a response by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). I know we look forward to listening to further discussion today at 6:30 p. m.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Ferraro: I have a petition signed by 50 people, most of whom are from my riding, pertaining to the situation of naturopathy.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition with 40 names on it.

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

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Barlow: As members may recall when we adjourned the debate on Thursday, I had been asked a couple of questions which I would like to respond to now in the brief time allotted to me.

First, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) asked me to address a couple of points. He was particularly concerned about the trucking industry and wanted to know my position on deregulation. I have no hesitation in telling him that my position has not changed: I am opposed to deregulation. It was during discussion with the then Minister of Transportation and Communications that I suggested his bill on reregulation should be brought forward as a discussion paper and not be introduced in the House for first reading.

The member asked me about my position on ad valorem taxes. I have no hesitation in supporting the ad valorem tax. If it were in place at present, the trucking industry would not be paying as much fuel tax as it is. This is a message we have been trying to get across to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) during the past couple of days.

The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) asked me to respond to three items. One is my position on Ontario health insurance plan premiums. We were trying to point out that it is one of the promises the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made during the election campaign a year ago that he did not keep. We did not make that promise. There are other promises the Premier has not kept, but it will take too long to get into those.

My position on beer and wine in the corner stores has not changed. I am opposed to it, and 66.8 per cent of the people in Cambridge are opposed to it. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is opposed to having the buck passed to municipalities. It is easy for me to respond to that.

The member also wanted to know my position on the stand we made on the economic --

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

Mr. Barlow: I was talking as fast as I could.

Mr. Philip: Commentators on this budget have labelled it a conservative budget. Some less kind have labelled it a Conservative budget from a previous decade. Essentially, those commentators in the press and in this House have been correct. While the budget does not directly do an awful lot of harm to individual middle-income persons, average persons in Ontario, it does very little to help those people.

The Treasurer has argued in the media that he has created a budget of balances, one that takes various interests into account and tries to reach a happy equilibrium. He argues and admits that grave injustices still exist but that now is not the time to make the changes. A majority of the population of Ontario voted for change in the last election. One must ask why the changes are so slow in coming. This budget, and the provincial Liberal government which drafted it, had an opportunity to make some important changes. The government fumbled its opportunity.

3:40 p.m.

Essentially, I believe the citizens of Ontario want fairness in a budget. Forty-two years of Conservative Party rule in Ontario have created a series of policies that are basically unfair to the average wage earner. This budget and the speech from the throne fail to deal with that problem of fairness. The budget does nothing to repair the gross imbalance between corporate and personal income taxes. It does nothing to correct the injustices which I have pointed out exist in the present property tax system. It does nothing to counterbalance the tax system of the federal Conservative government, which this year will allow some people to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars without paying any taxes on those earnings, while middle-income earners must continue to pay higher and higher taxes.

While this budget has increased spending that directly benefits the citizens of Ontario by $79 million -- and here I speak of increasing services for the larger senior citizen population and home care for the disabled -- it gives almost that amount to the highest-paid profession in Ontario, the medical profession. The doctors, whose average take-home income is $120,000 a year, will be getting $65 million. That contrasts rather sharply and it says what this government is all about.

While the government can give an extra $65 million to the doctors, it fails to eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums for the working poor. There are 318,000 individuals below the poverty line. This budget eliminates OHIP premiums for only 35,000 people, a far cry from the Liberal election promises of the Premier and his Treasurer.

Any fair-minded person would say those below the poverty line should not pay income tax. In spite of this, while those doctors with average incomes of $120,000 a year can get yet another $65 million of taxpayers' money, this government has decided that anyone with an income of more than $2,075 must pay income tax. I cannot imagine a person living on that amount of money. In this House, that amounts to roughly five per cent of what the minister and I earn. The Liberal government across the floor has decided those people should pay income tax.

I represent a riding where a large number of constituents must commute to work by automobile. Many of them work north of Steeles Avenue. Many of them work in the Woodbridge area and many of them work west of the riding of Etobicoke in Peel, Mississauga and parts farther west than that. They have no choice but to use the car. Many of them are shift workers. They work at all hours of the night. They commute back and forth to work. Yet, as we have seen over and over again, a number of us have raised in the Legislature the problem of increasing costs of gasoline.

The Ontario Motor League provided us with some interesting figures, which we in this party had already brought to the attention of the government, and yet this government does not deal with the issue of increased taxes on gasoline. We were able to get somewhat of a rollback and use the leverage of a minority government to convince the Treasurer in the last mini-budget that gasoline taxes should not escalate at the rate at which he had contemplated. None the less, they are still far too high.

Similarly, if we look at what is happening in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we see that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), even though he clearly has constitutional powers to deal with the problems of the oil companies and the prices they are charging for gasoline, has failed to do anything. Since the end of November 1985, the price of crude oil has dropped about 65 per cent compared to a 15 per cent drop in gasoline.

David Sellers, president of the oil and gas division of BP Canada, said on March 20 that Ontario motorists at that time should be paying only 35 cents to 40 cents a litre for gasoline, and yet the provincial government, which has the power to investigate and to roll back the gouging of the oil companies, has failed to do so. It is not just the president of BP who has admitted that the oil companies have kept prices artificially high by several cents a litre, but the president of Shell also made a similar admission.

Then we have the strangely silent member who represents consumers in Ontario saying he could not move on this. When we brought it to his attention in the House, he said he had met with the oil companies and felt somehow these prices were justified. Similarly, the provincial government has failed to take leadership by saying in no uncertain terms to the federal government that its hikes in gasoline taxes are too high.

As members of the New Democratic Party have pointed out in the House of Commons, the federal hikes in gasoline taxes stem from that government having to make up for the large losses in its revenue as a result of the massive tax giveaways which have been bestowed on the oil industry over the years after signing the energy agreement known as the western accord. In that accord, the federal Conservative government agreed to phase out of petroleum and gas revenue a tax on oil revenues that brought in an annual $2.5 billion to the federal Treasury. As a consequence, the government has had to make up its shortfall by increasing the amount consumers pay in direct taxes on gasoline.

We see how this is a clear example of a direct transfer of wealth from the consumers to the oil companies. These increases in prices, aside from taxes, have taken place at a time when oil industry profits are fairly high. There was an astounding increase of 43 per cent in 1984 and a further increase of 12 per cent in the first half of 1985. Imperial Oil alone reported its overall profits for 1985 up 28 per cent over 1984 for a total profit of $684 million.

Where is the provincial government when it comes to speaking up for the consumers of Ontario against the federal Conservative government, which has been responsible for large oil and gas increases? How is the consumer being protected by this provincial government in dealing directly with the oil companies when it has the power to do so?

This government and its Treasurer will go down in history as the government that had an opportunity and was afraid to act. One of the most tragic areas of inaction is pension reform. When I speak to constituents who have come from Europe, who have relatives in Europe or who have even visited some of the European countries, they find it very hard to understand how we can have a government that allows industries to rip off the savings of ordinary working people through their pension funds.

The Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations acts merely as an apologist for these companies. His reasoning is that there is nothing illegal. If there is nothing illegal, one must ask, why not make it illegal. Other countries have. Why is there nothing illegal about the behaviour of employers, who this year have already skimmed off almost $190 million from pensions? It is obscene, it is unfair and it is unjust. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations simply says that while pension surpluses rightfully belong to the employees, there is nothing illegal about the companies taking those moneys.

3:50 p.m.

The minister recently introduced the draft pension bill, but it fails on three fronts. It fails because it does not require the indexing of pension benefits to changes in the cost of living; it fails because it does not end the legalized theft, and that is what it is, of the surpluses by the plan sponsors; and it fails because the changes for part-time workers do little to provide these people with any kind of economic security.

Part-time workers earning more than $140 a week on an annual basis for two consecutive years will be eligible to join company pension plans, but there are several problems. On the average, part-time workers work 15 hours per week. On this basis, someone earning less than $9.45 per hour will not qualify, and less than half of the regular, paid labour force is covered by any pension plan whatsoever.

We have had an abominable failure by this government in dealing with the problem of security for our workers when they are older. Just as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has failed to deal with the problems of gouging by the oil companies and the problems of gouging by those corporations that take the surpluses from their own pension plans, that steal from their employees, so too he has failed to deal with the issue of skyrocketing insurance premiums.

When the leader of our party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations what he intended to do about the fact that automobile insurance is going up so much higher in this province than in other provinces, when he asked why premiums fell by seven per cent in 1985 in Saskatchewan, are frozen at present in Manitoba and fell by two per cent in British Columbia but in Ontario insurance prices are escalating at 20 to 25 per cent, the minister said, "It is a philosophical problem with you people."

What is philosophical about the people in my riding paying 20 per cent to 25 per cent more this year for automobile insurance? Surely they deserve the same rights as people in other provinces. Surely there is nothing philosophical about that; it is an economic issue. It is also an issue of will. Plainly and simply, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is afraid to act on behalf of the consumers in this province against the insurance companies.

At the beginning of my speech, I condemned the government for its tardiness in moving towards a fairer system. Time and again I have stood in this House and tabled very extensive research showing that there is basic and profound unfairness in our property tax system. Research which I tabled and which the Minister of Revenue, who is also the Treasurer, found extremely interesting showed that those people in the north end and in the extreme south end of Etobicoke have been paying excessively high property taxes compared to those living in the more affluent centre of the city.

I have also spoken out about the frustration that my constituents and I have in the courts of revision, where no rules seem to apply, where it is not necessary to give reasons for decisions and where no one seems to know why he has had his taxes either reduced or not reduced.

I have spoken about the problem of the person who shows some initiative and improves his home suddenly finding he is paying higher and higher property taxes. The minister knows about my private member's bill on the issue. I do not believe that people who live in their own homes and improve them should suddenly be faced with higher property taxes, provided those renovations are not excessive. My bill says that if you improve it up to the cost of $10,000, you should not pay higher property taxes. In fact, $10,000 in materials would be an average kind of improvement that the average working person in my riding would make on his home, perhaps during the winter months, when some are unemployed and have the time to do that.

The Goyette commission pointed out that those whose homes are in areas that pose an environmental problem should have special consideration given to them. To the credit of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who fought on behalf of home owners over the urea formaldehyde foam issue, Goyette says essentially that it is the same principle. If someone is in an environmentally damaging area, then there should be some consideration when he comes to pay his property taxes.

In my riding we are faced with noise from railways, we are faced with noise from the airport and we are faced with noise from Highway 401. Other people, such as those in the High Park area, may be faced with pollution of the nostrils. One can go on and on, but essentially Goyette makes an interesting point. It is something the Minister of Revenue, who also happens to be the Treasurer, should consider.

In a previous speech I outlined some of the more serious disagreements I have with the Goyette report, and I am pleased the Minister of Revenue has responded to at least one of them, namely, that it makes absolutely no sense to reassess on an annual basis one set of home owners -- condominium owners -- as was proposed, and not reassess others. Had that been implemented, it would have meant that condominium owners in this hot market would have had astronomical increases in property taxes. The minister has, to his credit, responded favourably to my criticism in that direction.

However, he still remains insensitive to the need to have a direct comparison between condominiums in a neighbourhood and single-family detached homes. I cannot understand why he is insensitive to this. It makes so much sense. It seems fair that one home owner should pay taxes similar to those of another home owner.

While we are talking about condominiums, I found it unfortunate to read the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that he did not see a high priority in tabling the new condominium bill that the Canadian Condominium Institute and the Etobicoke Condominium Association have been awaiting for more than two years.

Mr. Speaker, you will certainly recall that when the last condominium bill was debated, every one of the amendments proposed by the Etobicoke Condominium Association save one, a minor one, was defeated by the joint efforts of the Liberals and the Conservatives voting against condominium home owners.

Maybe that is the reason the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations does not want to bring out his new condominium bill. Maybe he knows his party is no more sensitive to the issues and the concerns of condominium owners now than it was when it joined with the Conservatives under the minority government and voted against the condominium owners in this province.

4 p.m.

The government states in its throne speech that it is committed to a policy of efficiency. Time and again, as our party's critic on government spending, I find examples of inefficiency.

My colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who is here in the House, will tell members about the tremendously inefficient way in which this government decided to sell off a major crown asset, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. It was not based on any transportation policy; it was not based on any analysis that it would be a good idea to sell this company for reasons of economic development. The government simply decided it should make a list of which crown corporations could be sold off and it decided UTDC was the most saleable. No transportation issues were studied. No economic issues were studied. It was merely, "Let us make a list and find out which of the goodies in our bag we can sell off most easily."

Mr. Foulds: It is even having difficulty doing that now.

Mr. Philip: It cannot even do that properly, and on Thursday in the standing committee on public accounts, my colleague the member for Port Arthur and I will be dealing with that. I have tabled a notice of motion that will be debated this Thursday. It deals with a further inquiry into the real value of UTDC. Have the actions of this government decreased its value?

Mr. Foulds: Absolutely.

Mr. Philip: "Absolutely," my colleague says. What kind of business sense is there in the actions of this government when it has gone about the sale of this company in such an unbusinesslike fashion?

We have also dealt with the issue of the dome. All three parties in this House agree there should be a domed stadium. Some of us disagree with the site. Some of us, as in my case, may agree with the chairman of Metro Toronto who, as mayor of Etobicoke, thought it should be in Etobicoke. Others may have favoured other locations. That is not the issue. The issue is that the previous government in a sweetheart, behind-the-scenes deal managed to put together a sweetheart consortium of companies and excluded other companies.

We in the New Democratic Party said that while we were committed to building the domed stadium, we were not committed to that kind of government inefficiency. We forced an inquiry and we can see now, in one announcement after another, that more companies are coming in. With each company coming in, we are saving the taxpayers an amount of $5 million.

It was interesting to watch the Liberals in that committee, because they were slow in responding. They did not know whether they wanted an inquiry. They were defensive. When they were in opposition, they were very aggressive about what was happening. They joined with New Democrats in trying to force open what was happening. In government, they are very slow indeed.

The most recent example was the appearance of Ontario Housing Corp. officials before the committee only a week ago. After questioning Mr. Beesley and other OHC officials, members of the committee were not satisfied with the way in which the public purse is being spent by that corporation. As early as 1978, I raised in this House the problem of security guard contracts with various ministers, yet eight years later we are still faced with the deplorable situation of sweetheart contracts, violations of the Manual of Administration and charges by the Provincial Auditor against the way in which OHC has handled its business.

What we have is a situation in which a former deputy chief of police was hired by OHC to recommend how security should best be conducted. One could not write this kind of scenario. Not only is he paid for the report, but also he recommends that one company, a private enterprise company, should be set up exclusively to handle security for Ontario Housing. Having made that recommendation, he then proceeds to form that company and without tender to get that very contract, a $4.3-million contract.

The Ministry of Housing and OHC officials are now coming before the public accounts committee. It is not bad enough that we have had one scandal after another with security firms during the last Conservative government. Now, under the Liberal government, OHC comes before the public accounts committee and clearly demonstrates that it has made no effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the company's work and that it has just provided that company with a five-year sweetheart contract of $24 million, once again without any kind of tendering.

Where has the minister been for the past 10 months that he has not said: "This is an atrocity. I am going to step in and deal with OHC. I am going to tell them once and for all to smarten up their act, to deliver effective security systems to the tenants of Ontario Housing and to stop these policies that are against the Manual of Administration, that are against OHC's own operating manual and that are highly questionable when it comes to protecting the taxpayers of Ontario"?

Even this Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), who constantly goes on studying one thing after another and taking very little action, would abhor the answers we received in the public accounts committee. We are going to call the officials back, because we do not think we got straight answers. We do not think we got answers that are acceptable to us or to the Provincial Auditor, Doug Archer.

Ontario Housing is not only mismanaging from the fiscal point of view; it is also mismanaging from a human point of view. Nothing is more in need of reform than the transfer system at Ontario Housing. As the members know, a person in Ontario Housing may transfer only on grounds that he or she is overhoused or underhoused, or is in need of a unit closer to work or study, or that there are medical grounds for the transfer -- and just try and get them on medical grounds; very few are granted.

There were recommendations by the standing committee on administration of justice which the Liberals on that committee signed along with the New Democrats, a report that admittedly was defeated by the Conservatives once they got their majority. Those recommendations clearly asked for a revision of the transfer policy, yet I will give a case I have just written about to the Ombudsman. I will not use the person's name.

"Dr. Dan Hill, Ombudsman of Ontario:

"You will find enclosed documents related to a complaint by the above-mentioned constituent."

If I use words that seem to you to be a little strong, Mr. Speaker, you must remember that I have been writing over and over again to Ontario Housing and to various Ministers of Housing about this problem since 1978.

"You will find the complaint arises from yet another asinine, stupid and incomprehensible rule concerning transfers by Ontario Housing. Mrs. A, out of a sense of Christian compassion, took in a young boy who had nowhere to live. This young boy was literally on the street, and he was brought to her by the children's aid society. He had been living with Mrs. A since 1985. A family court judge, in dealing with the matter, ruled that this boy was better living in that family than anywhere else."

We have not only approval by the children's aid society but also a family court judge looking into it. What does Ontario Housing do? As the boy grows older, it becomes necessary to have larger accommodation. "Ontario Housing has now refused to allow for a transfer to a larger accommodation on grounds that a foster parent relationship is not a permanent one." The children's aid says this boy belongs with that family. The family court judge says the boy belongs in that family.

4:10 p.m.

Mrs. A has a two-bedroom apartment and because she has a bad back condition, her older, teen-age daughter cannot sleep in the same small room or in the same bed with her. It is obviously unreasonable to have that daughter sleep in the same room with the boy who is being housed by this family. However, because Ontario Housing has decided this is not a permanent relationship, this woman, who out of a sense of Christian charity and compassion has done a good turn, is being penalized and cannot get an apartment appropriate to the size of the family she now has. That is the kind of game that OHC plays.

I am looking forward to the report on Ontario Housing to be brought down by Dan Hill, who is doing an excellent job of revising and improving the Office of the Ombudsman. He has agreed to my request for a systemic study of Ontario Housing. He has agreed to start with the report of the standing committee on administration of justice that put forward 119 recommendations on what is happening as far as mismanagement of this corporation is concerned, and he will be tabling a report with the committee.

But why does the Minister of Housing not make the changes when there are such obvious abuses? Why does he have to wait for the Ombudsman to bring down his report, as he will because he is a tremendously reasonable person, a man who has proven himself in the human rights field --

Mr. Runciman: Another Tory appointee.

Mr. Philip: And to the credit of the Conservative Party; albeit he was appointed without consultation with the other two parties, none the less it was a good appointment made by the then Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis. Why must we wait for him to bring down his report for the Minister of Housing to go and look at these problems and to make the necessary changes?

When the new chairman of the Ontario Housing Corp. was appointed by the present government, he was quoted as saying that he hoped "to bring a little more comfort, a little more dignity, a little more security to its 84,000 residents." There has been no indication that this has been happening. One must ask, why is the current situation allowed to continue? Why would the Minister of Housing, who is sitting across the floor listening to me -- if the other member would not be interrupting him while I am addressing comments to him -- not act to bring about the kinds of reforms that his own members recommended in the justice committee in 1977?

Earlier in the speech, I talked about how the budget manages to find an extra $65 million for the highest profession in this province but fails to deal with some of the basic health care problems. In the past, I have been critical of the government's health care delivery system. I have argued that it has been overly dominated by the Ontario Medical Association and by one group of health practitioners, namely, the physicians and surgeons of this province. I will not repeat the kinds of comments I have made.

I recognize that the current Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has said he is open to looking at other disciplines. But why, on Thursday, April 3, were recommendations made by the health professions legislative review committee and released by the Minister of Health? The committee recommended that naturopathy be deregulated, ostensibly because it does not pose a risk to the public and it is too difficult to define. Such a proposal means that virtually any one of us can set up in this province as a naturopath, without any kind of training or discipline. I find that shocking.

My wife happens to teach nursing; so she is not a novice in looking at health care programs. In the past, my family has found that naturopaths had insights for certain types of treatment and could provide therapy that perhaps was not available from other health professionals.

This proposal denies the people in this province their right to choose a disciplined profession that has served us well. It will expose the public to the danger of unqualified and unregulated practitioners calling themselves naturopaths, and it will adversely affect the practising naturopaths and the prospects of present and future naturopathic students.

These are not people who have walked in off the street and developed some pseudoscience. These people, many of whom I have had contact with and talked with, are either doctors of medicine plus naturopaths or chiropractors plus naturopaths or they have a background in other health disciplines before they take the very rigorous program that allows them to put the designation of naturopath next to their names.

Naturopathy is a well-established, reasonable profession that has been in existence in Ontario for 61 years. Why does this government wish to deregulate it and ruin a system that has proven itself to be of use to the citizens of Ontario?

It seems all the more ludicrous that this policy is coming forward at a time when the Science Council of Canada has stated that we should be going in the opposite direction. In April 1986, a report released by the Science Council of Canada stated that Canada's medical system relies too much on expensive cures and too little on various types of health professionals other than the doctors or the medical profession, and yet this ministry seems intent on going in the opposite direction, at least as far as this one profession of naturopathy is concerned. It simply does not make sense.

While we are on the topic of health and health care, during the recess of the Legislature, I served on our party's task force on health and safety. I was surprised at the testimony we heard in Peterborough, in northern Ontario and in the city of Etobicoke, where we had some hearings.

In 1979, the present Occupational Health and Safety Act came into existence after pressure from the public and the New Democratic Party. While the legislation was an improvement over the previous legislation, it was not long after the act came into force that we realized it was not being enforced. The present act fails to provide workers with the explicit right to a work place free of hazards. It does not have any stated purpose at all.

In 1963, the International Labour Organization defined the object of occupational health as the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social wellbeing of workers in all occupations. As we went around this province, we heard horror story after horror story.

For example, we heard from a group of women who came forward in Etobicoke to say that the manager in their company appointed every member of the health and safety committee. In Peterborough, we heard from someone from the Deseronto-Napanee area who told us of a company owner there who had said, "The first time a health and safety inspector arrives in this company, I will close down the company and move it 30 miles away." It may have been 50 miles away; I do not remember the exact mileage. In any case, that is the type of intimidation that is going on.

4:20 p.m.

While I was shocked at the stories I heard in places such as Peterborough and from delegations from Deseronto, Napanee and Trenton, the thing that occurred to me, and it came through very vividly, was that there are major atrocities going on in even the most highly unionized, most sophisticated companies.

The worst case I heard was one I wrote about in an article for the Etobicoke Advertiser-Guardian. It bears repeating, because this is not a small company we are dealing with; it is not a nonunionized company. We are dealing with one of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced companies in the country, with one of the most sophisticated unions.

In October 1985, there were complaints by some workers at McDonnell Douglas who were using a particular cleaning solvent. They were using it to clean the inside of airplane wings. The employees claimed they were having health problems. One worker was off sick, and a probationary employee was let go because she experienced health concerns and the company did not want to keep her on. The company allowed a health and safety representative of the employees to talk to only some of the workers but not to others. Indeed, that health and safety rep was ordered away from the work site.

Under pressure from the union, the industrial health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour finally took some tests on December 4, 1985. Some of the readings exceeded 6,000 parts per million. This contrasts to a maximum eight-hour exposure allowed for that particular chemical of 350 parts per million. In other words, the employees were being exposed to more than 20 times the allowable limit. The allowable exposure limit of 25 parts per million was exceeded by more than 10 times.

What did the Ministry of Labour conclude? It concluded that it was safe to continue working with these dangerous chemicals if a respirator was worn. The union appealed the inspector's decision on the grounds that the respirators were rated for only up to 10 times the allowable exposure and that dioxin could be absorbed through the skin. One must ask what kind of incompetence there is in the Ministry of Labour. Not only do the masks that they say will protect the workers not protect them, but they do not recognize that this very dangerous carcinogenic product can be absorbed through the skin.

This case is interesting, because there are 55,000 chemicals in use in Ontario, of which 250 are known carcinogens. Yet when we went from plant to plant, we saw time and again that Ministry of Labour officials did inspections in a manner that can only be called sloppy, that they were overworked and understaffed and that in some instances the companies seemed to know when they were coming: the windows were open, the ventilation systems were put on and so forth.

On the same topic, last week I tabled a notice of motion in the standing committee on public accounts dealing with the safety associations in Ontario. There is $31.4 million going into these safety associations at the moment. In 1975, when these safety associations were established, they were provided with $9.97 million. By 1985, we had skyrocketed to $31.4 million. In spite of such large expenditures, injuries and health-related problems in the work place have increased by 24 per cent in the past two years.

One must ask, are we getting value for money? How is it that we are spending more and more on these nine health and safety associations and yet getting a constant increase in workers' compensation claims? It is our understanding that last year close to $1 million was spent by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association in travel alone; on legal fees, $45,000; on memberships, $12,000 -- all this for 200 employees.

Taxpayers have a right to know where the money is going, and we in the standing committee on public accounts, in dealing with the resolution that will be debated on Thursday, have a right to know. We have a right to know why in 1984 the IAPA moved its headquarters in Toronto from 2 Bloor Street East to 2 Bloor Street West. Even though there was an offer of a location down the street at half the price, with 30 per cent more space, it somehow ignored and refused that space.

We will want to know what relationship there is between the expensive portraits of present directors on the walls of the five very nice boardrooms in that association and the matter of health and safety in this province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are those the oil paintings?

Mr. Philip: They are the oil paintings. I am the greatest promoter of the arts. I love the arts. I go to the theatre whenever I can. I go to the art galleries. However, one wonders whether this is the way to promote the arts in Ontario. If they did a portrait of the Treasurer, I would much prefer that, because he is somebody I know and greatly respect, but with portraits of these characters, one wonders whether the money is being spent in the best way possible. We will be looking into that.

Related to health and safety is the fact that as we went around the province and talked to employee after employee, to various unions and to various people not connected to any union, they told us over and over that the health and safety associations meant very little to them. They did not receive any training, or few of them did, through the health and safety associations. One must ask whether nine associations are necessary, whether there could be economies of scale by combining some of them and whether the safety associations are the right way to proceed in the first place.

I found it interesting when I heard the comments of the small businessmen in response to the Treasurer's budget. A number of them talked about workers' compensation premiums going up, not about their taxes going up. This is not only a safety issue in terms of the employees but also an economic issue with regard to the employers and the amount of money we are spending in constantly increasing workers' compensation premiums. Why are they increasing? It is because the accident rate is going up, and the safety associations are obviously not having any substantial impact at all.

When we talk about health and safety in the work place, the other face of that is health and safety in the environment. In dealing with the St. Clair toxic blob, we in the New Democratic Party put forward a nine-point program of environmental laws to this government. We suggested that there be improved enforcement and the institution of higher minimum fines for polluters and that government be prepared to use the Environmental Protection Act to send the corporate executives to jail if toxic spills are found to be deliberate or to show wanton disregard for public health. That has happened in the United States.

We asked that the government enact clear standards for all discharges to waterways, with automatic penalties for violations, and that the government develop an Ontario superfund for chemical cleanups, in which those who generate and dispose of chemical wastes eventually pay for the cost of the cleanup.

Mr. Haggerty: The user pays.

Mr. Philip: The user-pay system for corporations. Why is it we can have a user-pay system for citizens, but when it comes to corporations, this government is slow?

4:30 p.m.

We also asked that the government set up an approvals system with strict minimum standards to which certificates of approval must conform and that it develop the waybill system to include onsite disposal of hazardous waste, which might be up to 90 per cent of such waste. Out of all those recommendations, the government managed to implement one.

We have to ask why the government is so slow. Today in the Legislature we had the shocking admission by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) that there is little co-ordination between his ministry and the Ministry of the Environment. My colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has brought the issue of our drinking water to this House over and over again, and she forced an emergency debate on the quality of our drinking water.

We were concerned about dioxins found in the drinking water. Now we find that drinking water is not the only problem; there is also a problem with meat grown in Ontario and with fresh fruit. Even though we know the dioxins in beef and fruit pose what we are told is an even greater problem than those found in the water, we have the admission by the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he does not have an adequate testing program in place to find out the extent of the problem. The Liberal government was quite rightly critical of the environmental policies of the previous government, but when it comes to acting, we have the atrocious performance we had from the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the House today.

Since the Minister of Housing is still here, I want to speak about some tenant issues. I will not recycle all my private members' bills, as I am sure the minister has read them, or at least his staff are familiar with them; they must be, because they manage to borrow from them in the bills they introduce.

I want to talk about Bill 11. In 1984, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) when in opposition introduced a bill to stop demolitions in the city of Toronto. If it had been extended, as was my earlier bill in 1982, it could have stopped demolitions in other cities across this province. It has taken this Minister of Housing 10 months to bring in a bill to do exactly that. It is no different, although it is wider because it deals with a number of issues. The specific section on demolitions is very little different from the bill I introduced in 1982 and the bill his own leader, now the Premier, introduced in 1984. I asked the minister: "What about the people who are now facing the bulldozers at their doors? Will you introduce emergency legislation putting a ban on demolitions until you can amend Bill 11?" He said he would not do that.

This government has moved too slowly. It is moving slowly but surely on the accord. When one looks at what the government is doing, it seems to be afraid to act on anything other than the accord. It has introduced a budget that is a Conservative budget. It is introducing what is New Democratic Party legislation, more or less, but very slowly. Perhaps it should be called the Xerox party; it does not do anything original.

It is afraid to upset the insurance companies. The Treasurer is smiling. If he provokes me, I will talk about the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It is afraid to deal with the insurance companies and the escalating insurance costs. It is afraid to deal, as the Treasurer's own father was so able to deal, in competition with the banks by expanding the role of the Province of Ontario Savings Office so that farmers, home owners with mortgages and small businessmen could get loans at a reasonable cost and so the government might have a planning tool to be able to stimulate economies in certain cities. It has failed to deal with any of those matters, other than the doctors, that deals with taking on the vested-interest groups.

There is little in this budget that is original. It takes its legislation, as I said, from the New Democrats. It takes its budget from the Conservatives. One would hope that at least some time in the next year or year and a half the Treasurer might bring in a budget that has some creativity, that does something about employment in a very constructive way and that is not afraid to move quickly and to take on some of the vested-interest groups it was so happy to take on in the opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Mr. Speaker, I know you asked for questions or comments, but I think I will take the opportunity in my statement in the budget debate to lend some comments to what has been said.

I know that all members know I am from Scarborough North, the largest constituency in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was also the largest majority win in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the Treasurer reminds me, it was the largest win. What a strong mandate. I am proud of that. I say that for my constituents, because there were 31,000 people who came out to give me that mandate to come to this House today to represent them. In Scarborough North, there are 220,000 residents and about 120,000 eligible voters. As I said, there were 31,000 votes cast for the Liberal Party there. I think they were saying something. I think they were giving me a strong mandate to tell the House and to tell Ontario that they need a voice which represents their needs and concerns.

I say this not with any conceit at all. Although I have that strong mandate, and although I stand very confident and poised as if I were completely at home with things here, I am frightened and petrified at the awesomeness of this building and the great statesmen who sit around. They speak with such authority that at times, even when I am right, I stand up rather petrified. When I listen very carefully, I hear a lot of noise, but there is no substance.

4:40 p.m.

One of the problems is that sometimes when we have too much history behind us, we tend to look back more than forward. I think that is what happened to the party that held power previously. I am not here to criticize it or to say I feel that I am better than it is or that this Liberal Party is better than that party. I think if we as a government get complacent in any way, the people should then change for something better.

The previous government had its opportunity, and a good stretch of it, 42 years, to prove itself and to serve the community of Ontario. It did a very good job in a certain era of its reign, but it forgot. I say "forgot" because if one looks at Ontario today, 25 per cent of the people are functionally illiterate. This is a province that is rich in resources, a province the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has just declared has a buoyant economy, and yet 25 per cent of our people are functionally illiterate.

I heard my colleague opposite talk about housing. I hope he stays around. I would like him not to hit and run; I notice he is going. This is a problem in this House. There is a lot to be said and a lot to be listened to, but we say our piece and leave. It is sad because there is so much he could learn. I do not come to this House with a tremendous amount of history, but I come with a sensitivity to the many needs to be addressed that I have gathered over the years.

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister seems to be so concerned about my leaving, I can tell him that I have a meeting with the Clerk, that I will be reading his response and that I have a very important presentation to make on behalf of all three parties before a committee tomorrow; that is what I am preparing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I accept the member's apology, but I want to tell him on his way out that it is not how the word is written; it is how it is said with passion. I feel it that way, and I hope he can read it with that passion and emotion when he gets the time to read Hansard.

As I said, this province boasts a very rich and buoyant economy. To go back to where I was before I was interrupted, to the rate of functional illiteracy we have in this province, there are people in this province who are not able to decide whether something is a poisonous substance to drink or a medicine to take. There are people in this province who need a job but who cannot fill out an application form. They are willing and able, and they have the muscles and the will, but they are unable to fill out an application form. There are people in this province who need assistance through welfare but who sometimes are unable to come forward and sign the form. They stay back. They are forgotten people.

What does this have to do with the throne speech? Mr. Speaker, you have read it and many of the members here have read it. I have heard them come back with criticisms about the throne speech. What they fail to realize is that this is the first time in the little history I know that the government of the day has decided to address the problem of functional illiteracy that we face in Ontario.

It is a tremendous amount of progress to recognize it. The member said earlier that this Minister of Housing studies things to death and keeps on studying them. I remind him that we first have to recognize there is a problem, and not use the rhetoric and the trick questions I hear each day. Today we have television in the House, and some of the questions are just posturing so the constituents can hear them at night. There is no substance, no real compassion for the needy. There is no working together as 125 members in this House to wrestle with and address the problem.

Today was typical. The members heard about the disaster that is happening in the Winisk community. The comments I heard were rather appalling. I would have thought I would have heard things such as the honourable leader of the third party had said, that we should work together and assist those people in that community, because I know that today many of them are cold, wet and out of a home and need that help. They do not need liberalism, they do not need conservatism, they do not need new democraticism, socialism or however you put it; they do not need that. They need a home. They need love. They need attention.

That is what is happening, but we bring it to an academic debate; we sit here and debate it for an endless time. We can talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk. The throne speech is a walking speech. It is an action speech. It talks about the actions we will take.

I am glad the Housing critic for the Conservative Party is here. Let us talk about some walking. Let us talk about some action the throne speech is taking in regard to housing. We are funding and will be building 6,700 nonprofit units in 1986. That is in comparison with 2,000 municipal nonprofit units funded in 1985. That is only one part of the program.

The critic over there stands up at times and asks me: "When are you going to build these? What are you doing about the shortage of housing in this province?" I almost thought the shortage had come about overnight. He was so convincing and so committed to resolving that problem: "When are you going to build them? There is a need." I heard the passion in his voice.

When I speak about history, if I had been here last year, perhaps I would not be so convinced about the emotion he generates, because then I would have known whether he had the same passion and emotion he is carrying on with today in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. Is it the same? When I look back and realize that only 2,000 municipal nonprofit units were funded in the past, it tells me one has to think twice about whether he is really sincere.

I hear the critic of the third party talk about democracy. He says to me: "Bring in legislation now. Why are you dilly-dallying around?" He stands up and says, "It is frustrating to see the minister learn how legislation is made."

I would presume that if the New Democratic Party were in power, legislation would not be made in consultation; it would just be done right away. That party does not say the same thing about any strike actions we have here; it says we should leave it and the people will resolve it. But when we decide to bring in legislation and we use the democratic process of consultation, it says: "Cut that out. Just get to it and bring in laws without consultation."

4:50 p.m.

This brings me to the magic word "consultation." My government, the Liberal Party, said it was an open government. There is a part in the throne speech that is so profound. I do not find it profound; those on the other side find it profound. I will quote: "We must continue to advance the government's fundamental values of openness, accessibility, fairness, opportunity and the pursuit of excellence." They are saying it is profound. It is just basic common sense and honesty, because that is the way this government and this party has always behaved. Therefore, it is not profound for us to say that. Consultation was the way in which I and my staff went about bringing about the assured housing policy in Ontario. As I remember, they all applauded on that side.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was a great day.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It was a great day to bring in an assured housing policy in December 1985.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Now we want to see the reality.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We feel we have the capabilities and the funds to give every individual in this province decent and affordable shelter. What a change. While we go on and do things naturally, on the other side they are rather in shock to see that we can do these things. At one stage, I thought they were thinking I was one of those who can part the Red Sea because I have this magic wand that brought tenants and landlords together. It was very easy to do.

The ease of it was just to ask and to participate, to say to the tenants, "We need a housing policy in this province that will reflect your concerns and needs," and to say to the landlords, developers and investors, "We need a housing policy in this province that will reflect your needs and concerns." That is what it was: a coming together of these people, because they have the resources and the intelligence. I respect and admire them tremendously for this.

I will share a little secret with you, Mr. Speaker. When one of the developers was asked to serve on this landlord and tenant advisory committee, he was called by members on the other side who said: "What are you trying to do? Why are you supporting this?" The individual said to me, "My response was: `You were the ones who brought rent control here. They are trying to do something about a housing policy. Why are you trying to stop that?'"

He is a sensible man who is concerned about Ontario and every citizen here, although he is quite a rich man who does not need to spend all his time delving into dealing with the social issues and could say, "The government should deal with that." No, he is one of those Ontarians, and there are many of them around, who will come forth to deal with the social issues we have.

The tenants were crying in the wilderness a long time to be treated fairly. They need tenure to where they live. I have done no survey on this, but I guess that in this country we spend about 10 months of each year inside our houses. Imagine not having a place to live. The tenant and landlord advisory committee, which brought forth those recommendations to me, is very historic. It is sad that we call it a historic event, because it is so natural.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about expectations -- the expectations of a government to look after its people, whether they are rich or poor, lame or able, to be fair to all; an expectation of the people for fairness. One Tory member said to me that the Liberals are on a honeymoon. The only way I could describe that is to say that the Liberals are the type who would get married, maybe at church or at city hall, and go back to work in the afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe late afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes, late afternoon.

I could describe the Tory government as getting married in a church and going off for six months of honeymoon to Niagara Falls and leaving the rest for it to happen.

Mr. Wildman: You do not have any staying power.

Mr. Gillies: Six months in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is a limit to what we can take.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am saying that while they are waiting for the honeymoon to be over, work and dedication to the people of this province is a honeymoon to us, so they will be saying constantly, "They are on a honeymoon."

What a respectable man my leader, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), is. I gather too that some would say he is arrogant, a label they would like to put on us --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a misnomer. We are totally humble.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not think they know this man very well, and I do not think they will take the time to know him.

Mr. Gillies: We know him too well.

Mr. Foulds: You are arrogant in your humility, unlike the Tories; they were humble in their arrogance.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not think they are talking about the leadership on the other side where we saw arrogance. I have seen this leader, this Premier, sit down in cabinet every Wednesday and say: "We must be doing more for the women, and we must be doing more for the visible minorities."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And for the farmers.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of course, also the farmers.

I remember the first question I asked in this House of the then Tory leader, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). He was having problems appointing people from visible minorities to boards. As I recall -- and I stand to be corrected -- he said that it was difficult to find qualified people to fill those positions and that is why it took so long. The Premier opened the door and they came running in: qualified women, qualified visible minorities, Tories, Liberals and New Democrats. We opened the door and made but one request, and they came running in. There are many more. I am saying, and I speak on behalf of the Premier now, that if there are any competent people from visible minority groups or any women who want to be appointed, please give us a call; call any one of us.

Our policy is beyond calling for Conservatives or New Democrats to be appointed. The day Donald MacDonald was appointed, a man I respect and whose son I went to school with -- I know Brian MacDonald very well -- I was nauseated by the comment that was made. Let us not play politics about intelligence and sensitivity. I think it is the lowest way in which we can do that.

5 p.m.

This new minister has to take the time to learn how to conduct himself in this House. The culture is so disciplined, so intimidating that we have to show an openness in all respects. We are trying to indicate to the people that we are sincere and that they are all welcome here.

What a change we have seen since we took over the reins. I hope we will continue to see the province in the way it should be seen. Of course, I do not think any of us will be around in 42 years, when the Liberals will still be here, because I do not think there is any magic about the things we do.

Next week Bishop Tutu is coming to this House. It is a significant event. I am very proud to know I will be in the House and that Bishop Tutu will be addressing this House. It is obvious as I stand here that I am from the black community and of black extraction. I know the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) would look at me at times and say, "I did not know."

My election to this House has brought about an awareness on the part of the people of Ontario, of young people, of all the visible minorities, of all the white Anglo-Saxons and of all the people of Ontario that what we are seeing today is the real Ontario.

People's expectations of me are at times very high. I do not know whether I will do well. I will do my best as I go about my duties. I will do my best if I have to reflect it in housing, if I have to reflect it by standing here and saying how I feel about our great province, about bringing pride to all the people of Ontario.

There are a lot of resources here and a lot of intelligence. I know that one of the greatest creations of God is man. The same man who, with one stroke, can destroy a nation, can create and motivate thousands to do better for mankind.

There is so much I would like to say, but I want to say this: When I read the throne speech, I realized that a great change had come over Ontario. I realized that our people are sensitive. I am going to challenge the opposition; they must be good critics, a good opposition. They must oppose when they should and applaud when they should, even if the Liberal government has brought it forward.

I have looked at many of the housing policies that the previous government put into place, and quite a few were very good. Many are decayed and need the resurgence of a little more spirit in them. That is what we have done.

I could speak about the number of programs we have generated in the housing industry. I do not want to do that. I appeal to all members, those on my side and those on the opposite side, to be objective so that we will help this province to be the great province it can be and is.

I will be brief. An honourable member spoke about the Ontario Housing projects we have and how disgraceful they are. I am not one to compare and say that New York City is worse because it has jails in the basements of its housing projects. I do not want to compare them to Chicago, where there are mesh wires around the patios so that people do not throw bodies or bicycles over. I do not want to compare those.

Many things within the Ontario Housing Corp. need to be addressed. I am not the type to go in and change them immediately, as the New Democratic Party would say, without any consultation or without knowing what we are doing: "What are you waiting for, Minister?" If I am changing something, I want to know what I am changing it to. It should not be just for change's sake, as the NDP would indicate, but to know that we bring something in place that is better than what we have, not better than New York City or Chicago, but to improve on what we have.

Just this morning I addressed the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. It is very charged now to feel that things must improve. The people there told me this is the first time they have seen a Minister of Housing address them. Think about it. We manage 85,000 units. We are the second-largest landlord in North America; that is what the Ontario Housing Corp. is. We have 33,000 of those units in Metropolitan Toronto. Those people have never seen the Minister of Housing in all the years they have been managing the housing authority. It is sad neglect. For the sake of the people, I hope the Liberal Party and this government will never become as complacent as was the previous Conservative government.

I am going right back to Bishop Tutu when I mention that. Bishop Tutu is coming here. Bishop Tutu will not be addressing South African issues, if we think for one moment that is the case. He is addressing where the world is going today and the sensitivity that all people have a place in this society, whether they are black, yellow, green, short, handicapped, rich or poor.

Mr. South: Even Conservatives.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of course, we will consider Conservatives. There are some very good Conservatives.

I ask the opposition to read the speech from the throne again with a different intent, with an intent of sincerity, with an understanding that it was not a partisan plot but a direction in which we are sensitive to all the needs of the people of Ontario. I know my friend the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), my honourable critic, is very anxious not to criticize but to add to what I have said.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: I understand I have two minutes to reply to the Minister of Housing, who spoke glowingly about how sensitive this new government is to people, how open it is and how it will do wonderful things in this province.

I have sat in this House for a number of days and listened to how people in northern Ontario are paying 10 or 12 cents more a litre for gasoline, and this government has done nothing. How does the minister explain that? How does he explain that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) announced 10 months ago a $100-million development fund for the north and nothing has been spent? He is running around spilling more aviation fuel than most people spill gasoline out of their cars when they fill up.

I would not talk too much about how much the government has done. The government has not even established a benchmark as yet. When it comes to the north, it has failed. In 10 months, it has done nothing. What is the government going to do about the layoffs in Sault Ste. Marie? It will probably set up another committee to examine it. The minister can talk all he wants about being sensitive to people's needs, being understanding and all those glowing terms, but we have not seen anything yet.

Can the minister explain to me why the private sector has failed in the 10 months that he has been the minister to get out there and build some new housing? The only real housing that has been built so far has been in the nonprofit sector. One part of the industry has not caught fire yet.

When he starts talking about how sensitive and open he is to people's needs, let him remember we are not all fools on this side of the House. We can see through some of the claptrap we had to listen to.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I told the member I would not elaborate on our assured housing policy. I will address only his comments on the private sector, the Renterprise program. The member said they would not build the 5,000 units in the Renterprise program. So far, we have had 207 applicants in the private sector anxious to build. There are 4,321 projects about to be approved any time now.

The member said I was bragging. I decided not to tell him about all the good programs that are in place, the home-sharing programs and the Renterprise program. The private sector feels confident it can deal with a government that will be fair to them.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to speak on this budget, the second budget brought in by the present Treasurer, whom I commend for sitting in the House lo these many hours, as is his habit, listening to the valuable contributions made by members on all sides of the House and I am sure incorporating these in his very quick and able mind into future policies that will be of benefit to the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Correct. Perhaps the member should end his speech there.

Mr. Gillies: I suppose this may make the Treasurer a little nervous as the speech of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) made me a little nervous last week. Compliments can be a dangerous thing in this chamber.

I say in passing, because I see the Minister of Housing is leaving after his very eloquent speech in which he expressed many worthy sentiments, that we join with him in the sentiments he expressed with regard to Bishop Tutu's impending visit, our concerns about universal human rights and so on. Sincerely, there were many worthy thoughts in that speech, and I enjoyed it.

With regard to the substance, however, and some of the policies the minister did mention, it was a speech almost prone to bring one to tears. I might have burst into tears if his speech had addressed the reality rather than talking about what this government had done and what it would want us to believe. I would have then been more prone to break down emotionally, throw up my hands and say, "Good Lord, how lucky we are."

Unfortunately, the facts do not match the rhetoric. I happen to believe that rhetoric is probably what this government is best at. It has sold a bill of goods which is absolutely marvellous. Our friends in the press gallery love it; they eat it up, as do the people who are crowding in at this very moment to hear this speech, as the Treasurer points out to me.

This is a government which, if it specializes in anything after 10 months, specializes in communications. It specializes in leading people in the province who want beer and wine in corner stores to think they are going to get it when the government knows as well as the combined members of the opposition know that they are not going to get it.

It is a party which, during the election campaign of last year when the Peterson team was campaigning around the province, specialized in telling the people of Ontario that it was going to "put every young person in the province back to work." I am going to come back to that one.

It is a party that specialized in telling the people of Ontario during the election campaign that it would have a job creation program of some $500 million, leading the citizens of this great province to assume it would be true to its word and introduce a job creation program of some $500 million, which it has not done.

It is a government that told the province to expect the speedy introduction of denticare into the province and indicated it would be removing Ontario health insurance plan premiums as part of the funding of our health care system. It is a government that said it would exempt meals of under $4 from tax. Again, I will return to that.

Anyone glued to his or her television set at this moment, munching on a quarter-pounder with cheese and drinking a diet Coke -- which is my favourite lunch -- and who paid more than $2 for it, is wondering, "Good lord, Bob Nixon told me I would not have to pay tax on a meal of this sort, and I am sure I just paid tax on my quarter-pounder with cheese and my diet Coke."

It is a government that told the people of Ontario that there were going to be massive and innovative changes in our child care and in women's issues.

I so desperately want to believe all these things, the things that the Minister of Housing told us in his most eloquent speech. But I have been disappointed by the failure of this government to tackle the most vital matter of public concern in this province -- jobs -- its miserable failure to come up with a meaningful job creation program.

Mr. South: Unemployment is 6.9 per cent.

Mr. Gillies: Let us talk about that first. The member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) interjects. He would have us believe that everything is just fine. I have not checked the unemployment rate in Frontenac-Addington lately, but I hope it is wonderful; I really do. I hope it is the lowest in the province. It is not that great in Brantford, in Sudbury or in Sault Ste. Marie. The member for Frontenac-Addington has nothing to be comfortable about as far as unemployment in this province is concerned. It is the number one issue; he should talk to his constituents.

The first budget of the Treasurer came and went, increasing taxes, increasing the deficit, doing a bit of tinkering here and there with youth employment. But we waited. Dare I say we waited for the government to keep the promise? Dare I say it? The Treasurer brought in his second budget document last week. We pored over it after waiting with bated breath. There is a lovely symbol here which I believe represents a piece of Ontario falling out. It looks a bit like a jigsaw puzzle with a few pieces missing, which is a worthy symbol of this government. But we waited.

Let us talk about youth employment funding, which during my all too brief tenure as minister -- and I know my friend the member for Essex South will pounce on that -- was approximately $175 million. The fall budget came in, and the spending on youth employment under the new government was $175 million. At the time the Treasurer said, "Yes, but in the next budget we are going to increase it by $25 million." The spring budget of the Liberal government came in with not a penny increase, not even an inflationary increase. Youth employment stayed at $175 million.

5:20 p.m.

It is a mystery to me that the press-release writers, the gremlins in the back room of this government, have convinced an awful lot of people that it is otherwise, but for the purposes of this speech, I will deal in facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: I say to my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that I am sure he is as appalled as I am that this government has not increased its commitment to youth employment, but there it is.

We then look at women's issues. We look for the commitment, and again the trendocrats, as my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) referred to them last week --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It cannot be me. The member knows it is not me.

Mr. Gillies: Lord knows, the Treasurer, a man whose feet are planted firmly in the soil of this great province, is no trendocrat. I will bet that when the Treasurer sits around Earl's Shell station on the weekend and tells the guys, "You know, we are doing an awful lot for women in our various policies," they probably believe it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: At Earl's Shell, they are very concerned about that, as a matter of fact. The member may think they are not.

Mr. Gillies: They are? I know they are, and they are again taking the Treasurer at his word.

There is a lingering impression out there that through the initiative of this government there will be broad and sweeping moves in the area of pay equity, for example. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) brought in a pay equity bill, which I have described before and which I will describe again as parsimonious, mean-spirited and almost unnecessary.

The Minister of Labour brought a bill into this House to extend pay equity to 29,000 women in the immediate public service -- not to any agencies funded by the province or to the municipalities, the hospitals, the universities or the colleges, but just the immediate public service. I wonder. Lord knows, I am not a legal counsel to this House, but when I looked at the minister's bill, I was not even sure legislation was needed. I have a hunch the government could have done what it wants to do on such a small scale by regulation.

The Progressive Conservative Party is prepared to put on the line a major commitment to pay equity. I say to the Treasurer, when the Minister of Labour's bill comes forward, this party will move amendments to extend pay equity into the broad public service: to the hospitals, the municipalities, the colleges, the universities and the boards of education. If this government believes in equality for women, then we are going to make it live up to that belief and that responsibility.

If my understanding is correct, I believe the members of the New Democratic Party feel the way we do and, like it or not, the members of the government are going to end up with a meaningful pay equity bill, not because they want it but because we want it. Again I say to the Treasurer, it is the enormous gap between the sizzle and the steak that bothers us on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We left the sizzle behind. The steak is here --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that when the day comes in this House that the combined opposition moves its amendments to broaden the pay equity bill, the minister, who really believes in these things, will want to stand up and vote with us. I know he will, and I look forward to that.

There is an interesting phenomenon with this government. I have already mentioned its capacity for public relations, for which I sincerely give it full marks. It is impressive. The way it is being done is most interesting.

Many years ago, the Treasurer will recall, I spent a brief period in the Office of the Premier as a junior researcher, and I got to know a lot of the people in that office. They hived quite a few of us in the opposition over in offices in the Whitney Block. I have no complaint about that. I love my office in the Whitney Block. It is very handy and very good office space. However, as I trundled back and forth through the tunnel under Queen's Park Crescent a few weeks ago, there were huge flats and absolute wheelbarrows of boxes and crates of office equipment flooding through the tunnel to the Whitney Block. Who did I meet? It was half of the Office of the Premier, all my old friends from the Premier's office.

"Hello, Pauline," I said. "Hello, Margaret. Where are you all going?" "We're moving, Phil, over into -- you got it -- the Whitney Block." I said: "Good Lord, that is funny. The correspondence section of the Premier's office is moving over to the Whitney Block?" "Yes, we are not really going to be under the Premier's office any more. There are some new arrangements coming in. We are not sure what our reporting is going to be." That is fine.

Now the couriers and many of the other functionaries who have been part of the Premier's office for many years have been hived off across the road. I said to them, "Who is moving into your offices on the second floor of the Legislative Building?" They did not want to talk about that much and I did not press it. Lord knows, I would never betray the confidence of a friend. I went and checked it out myself.

All this office space is being taken up by the new trendocrats that my colleague the member for York Mills spoke of. They are pouring in. My God, they come from Ottawa on City Express. Every day another one gets off. They breed like rabbits. All these former Trudeau bureaucrats, all the ones who got hived out when the government changed in Ottawa and spent a bit of time running consulting firms, etc., have jobs now. It is absolutely marvellous. I now have found the Liberal job creation program; it is for any hack who ever got displaced in Ottawa. "Come on down to Queen's Park. There is a job for you here."

Mr. Wildman: That is because the Tory hacks have gone to Ottawa.

Mr. Gillies: Because the Tory hacks have gone to -- no.

I look forward to the estimates of the Office of the Premier this year. They have shifted all these bodies around, and I guess that is where we are going to find it and nail it down. It is the Liberal job creation program, but does it help the laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie and the laid-off farm equipment workers in Brantford, Chatham or Hamilton? Does it help these people? No, it does not. It helps anyone who has a closetful of red ties available.

The single biggest disappointment for me in the policies of this government and in the introduction of the budget of the Treasurer is its complete inability to wrap itself around the issue of jobs and the issue of an industrial strategy for this province.

The Treasurer will say to me, "We continued the community economic transformation agreements, the CETA program that your government introduced." The government did. We funded it at $20 million a year. This government funds it at $25 million over two years. There is a reduced commitment to CETA. They say: "We are looking at Sault Ste. Marie. We are looking at helping this and helping that." The Treasurer has to take the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) in hand. I know he did just that in Brantford on Friday. I will also return to that; I am getting quite a waiting list here. The Treasurer has to take some of these guys in hand and show them what to do.

There is a centralization of government going on in Ontario that is reminiscent of the Trudeau years in Ottawa. There are four ministers, including the Premier, running this government.

Mr. Wildman: Who is the fourth?

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: There is the Premier, the Treasurer, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is also known as minister of everything, and the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who is the minister of all education. I find this centralization disturbing. It is not in the best traditions of the parliamentary system. We would benefit from a broad and real ministerial responsibility that I sense is lacking in this government.

The dashings around during question period are phenomenal. I do not intend to be mean-spirited, but I say to my friend the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling), whose speech I have so recently praised, what embarrassment is caused to a minister when his bill is yanked and it appears he has not been told about it.

The government House leader, with all his ability and his penchant for keeping six balls in the air at once, is not allowing his ministers to run their ministries. They are pulling things. The Premier's office, the Attorney General, the Treasurer and the minister of all education are juggling all the balls and are not letting the other guys do it.

The Minister of Education, I always thought, believed that members should be allowed to do their job around this place. I remember that in 1982 the current Minister of Education said in this House, "Any parliamentary assistant who is not allowed to answer questions in this House is not worth the powder to blow him to hell." The Minister of Education said that.

I am waiting for the Minister of Education to extend his pervasive influence within this government so parliamentary assistants can start answering questions in the House and so we can compare the position of the Minister of Health's parliamentary assistant on extra billing, for example, with that of the Minister of Health himself. Lord knows we have enough fun comparing the minister's position with the Premier's position and with the Attorney General's position.

When our friend the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) told us many weeks ago that the extra billing crisis would be solved in six weeks, I took him at his word. I know that member is a man of his word. If he tells me extra billing is going to be licked in six weeks, I believe it; and when it is not, the members of the opposition should have the opportunity in this House to ask him about it. But the Minister of Education, who once believed these people should be able to answer questions, now apparently does not believe they should be able to answer these questions.

This government, with all its skill in public relations and communication, which I mentioned earlier, has a very fundamental problem in that it seems unable to get its legislative package through the House. The two drug bills, Bills 54 and 55, are before committee. Then, in a flurry of confusion, in the face of two sets of opposition amendments that look remarkably similar, the drug bills are yanked out of committee while the minister figures out what to do with them.

I have already mentioned the housing bill. The Minister of Housing, with sincere good wishes, wants to put together a package that will benefit the people of this province who need affordable housing, and the government cannot quite get it together. Then suddenly the minister finds one day that the government House leader has yanked it off the Orders and Notices paper. They communicate, but thus far we have not seen the ability to deliver. On the fundamental issues I have spoken of -- women's rights, housing and health care -- they have been unable, after 10 months, to deliver.

My friend the Minister of Housing spoke of a brand-new day and a brand-new government. Fine. If he hears us refer on this side of the House to a honeymoon, what we are really talking about is that period of time during which the people of the province will give the government the benefit of the doubt because it is new. When a honeymoon runs out, it is because the government cannot use that excuse any more; it is when the government has been in the driver's seat long enough that the people expect results. When those results are not forthcoming, that is when the honeymoon is over and that is when the government gets into real problems.

I turn to the subject of capital projects for our colleges and universities.

Mr. Mancini: How would the member know what a honeymoon was like?

Mr. Gillies: I have one to look forward to one of these days.

Mr. Mancini: I hope we are all invited.

Mr. Gillies: I would invite the member for Essex South to many things, but not on my honeymoon.

The government has made much of its supposed commitment to colleges and universities. Again, there is a failure to deliver. I quote my leader: "The Liberal government will actually provide less for capital projects in Ontario universities and colleges in 1986-87 than these post-secondary institutions received in 1984-85." The faculty associations are not happy. When the universities compare the programs that were put before them in the past with what they are getting under this budget, they will not be happy.

Child care: The budget held up expectations, as this government has consistently held up expectations, of improvements to areas of concern to women. The increase, if any, to child care in this budget is absolutely minuscule. The budget allocates $26 million this year for the 10,000 subsidized spaces that were promised in the last budget and that are not yet created. One subsidized day care space costs the province an average of $3,200 per year. The day care funding announced in this budget will not even cover the commitment that was made last October. Then there is $6 million for capital. What is $6 million going to do in this day and age with building costs being what they are? We need a meaningful commitment to child care in this province.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is $6 million more than was in the Tories' last budget for capital.

Mr. Gillies: Where the Minister of Community and Social Services runs into trouble is when he creates the expectations and does not deliver. I believe that is going to be increasingly the problem of this Liberal government.

If there is one thing I hear more about than any other issue from my constituents these days it is their frustration and being upset on the whole question of fuel pricing. We would have expected that this government, with all its high-flown rhetoric about making things better for ordinary people, would have tried to give the little guy a break on his gasoline at the pump.

This party offered the government a way to do that. We have said it before in this House and I say it again. If the amendment that this party moved to the Treasurer's budget bill from his last budget had been passed, if the provincial tax had been allowed to drop with the reduction in the cost of fuel to the suppliers, people would be paying three to four cents a litre less at the pump than they are now. It upsets and frustrates the members of the official opposition that the Liberals and the New Democrats combined to defeat that amendment because they had no faith and no belief that fuel prices were going to drop. Well, they have dropped.

It is not too late. The government could move an amendment now in this series of budget bills to give those people a break on the running costs of their cars. The government can still do it. I say this not in the spirit of partisan one-upmanship, but in the spirit of co-operation that the Minister of Housing spoke to earlier. I urge the government to move an amendment to lower the provincial taxation on fuel at the pump. The government can give them a break. We will support it, and I imagine the third party will support it. The government can still do it.

The last area I would like to talk about in this budget debate is the whole question of the province's finances. This year the Treasurer found himself in an enviable position because of the upturn in the economy. I believe the sound administration and the groundwork that was laid over the years by the Progressive Conservative governments in the past allowed this government to benefit this year. I have no problem with that; I am pleased about it. We are all delighted that things are going a bit better, that more of our people are working in this province and that there is more hope for our workers and more dynamism in our economy than we have seen in the recent past.

Why did the Treasurer not take advantage of this improved economy to take meaningful steps in the direction of reducing the provincial deficit to relieve the taxpayers of the province from part of the burden of government debt? When revenue is expected to grow by more than eight per cent this year, why did the Treasurer project his expenditure growth at 7.4 per cent at a time when the inflation rate is forecast to be 3.8 per cent? In other words, this government is going to take in more revenue than it is going to spend, and it is not applying enough of that difference, as far as we in the official opposition are concerned, to reducing the deficit.

5:40 p.m.

The Treasurer increased the deficit by $500 million in his last budget, and he reduces it by $590 million in this budget; the net difference after those two changes is negligible. He could have used revenues he is going to get this year because of the upturn in the economy. He could easily have reduced the provincial deficit this year by $700 million to $1 billion.

Why not? In the last budget brought into this House by my leader, the former Treasurer, he reduced the deficit by $1 billion and he did it without raising taxes. I do not believe that is beyond the capability of our current Treasurer. I spoke earlier of my regard for his ability. He could have done it; he should have done it, and I believe it is most unfortunate that this government did not move in that direction. He can maintain and improve services while taking advantage of an economic boom to reduce the deficit meaningfully. The Treasurer has been here much longer than I, and he knows that when times are tough or, heaven forbid, if there is another downturn in the economy, he will not be able to do it. He has to do it when times are good. The times are good enough now that he could have done it.

In conclusion, this budget is not particularly punitive; I recognize that. It is not one that is going to lead to massive demonstrations in the streets. It is not a budget that introduced new taxes.

It is not a budget that was punitive so much as it was a budget of missed opportunity. It is a budget that missed the opportunity to introduce meaningful job creation programs for our youth and for our older laid-off workers. It is a budget that missed the opportunity to take meaningful steps to create affordable housing for people in this province; a budget that missed the opportunity to have meaningful industrial adjustment and industrial strategy programs for our hard-hit communities, such as Sault Ste. Marie; a budget that missed the opportunity to take meaningful steps on women's issues and to bring in a broad and meaningful program of pay equity, and finally, a budget that missed the opportunity to take a meaningful step to reduce the burden of public debt on the taxpayers of this province.

That is how I will remember this budget: as the budget that did not do a number of things that had to be done. It may not be apparent in the current climate, but over the long haul, if the Treasurer's government is not willing or able to take these steps, the people will turn to another government that is.

Mr. Harris: I have a couple of questions or comments for the member for Brantford. I was very intrigued with the member's comments about missed opportunities. He talked about the great opportunity to reduce the deficit and, as I gather from his comments, an irresponsibility in spending that this budget seems to represent in the true Trudeau-MacEachen Liberal style of government.

I ask the member for Brantford whether he would comment on some of those missed opportunities. As I went through the budget document, there seemed to be a holus-bolus increase in spending, somewhere around 7.6 per cent, or double the rate of inflation, as I have examined it. I ask the member for Brantford to comment on how he feels about spending going up bolus-bolus, at double the rate of inflation, during a time when these missed opportunities are here.

I comment on 1,000 new civil servants being added in the province. It was only last fall that the Treasurer increased taxes to such a burdensome level, some of them temporary surtaxes. Given the increased economic activity -- perhaps the member for Brantford can comment -- surely this was the time to ease the tax burden. There are those 1,000 civil servants.

It seems to be the Liberal way that when there is more money, they never think of putting some away for a rainy day. I come back to something I stated last fall. What happened to the real member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member who cared about people and about Ontario?

Mr. McClellan: I was interested in something the member for Brantford said. I did not hear all of his speech in the House, but I was listening on the squawk box -- not that his speech was squawky. He commented that there has been a failure to pass legislation. I do not disagree with that. We have an opportunity to pass Bill 94, the act to end extra billing. Why did the Conservative Party vote with the Liberal Party to postpone clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 94 in committee of the whole House? Perhaps the member for Brantford will clarify that. Why does the Conservative Party appear determined to delay, procrastinate and filibuster Bill 94 in committee of the whole when it gets back into the House?

I would like to have a statement from the member for Brantford as to whether the Conservative Party is willing to have the necessary debate on Bill 94 when the bill is reported out of committee. I am sure the Conservatives will vote to report the bill out of committee and will not delay or frustrate the desire of the people of Ontario to have this bill passed, ending extra billing once and for all.

I am sure the member for Brantford will want to explain to us the position of the Conservative Party on Bill 94 when it is in committee and when it gets to committee of the whole House and whether the Conservative Party is willing to pass the bill expeditiously, to go with the flow of the vote and not frustrate the legislation or unnecessarily delay its passage.

Mr. South: I enjoyed very much the speech by the member for Brantford, but I wonder why the opposition always sticks to part of the equation. They are going to reduce the gasoline tax and they are going to pay more money to pay off the deficit. Where is the money going to come from? Where are they going to get the increased revenue? What programs are they going to cut? They cannot have it both ways. It is great to say, "We want this and we want that." Are they going to increase taxes and cut back programs? Where is the $700,000 they are going to pay off on the deficit going to come from?

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Swart: I cannot resist the opportunity to rise and pose a question or two to the member for Brantford, particularly on statements with regard to the gasoline tax and the fact that it would be two, three or four cents lower if we had the ad valorem tax we had before.

I have not heard the member comment on whether he believes the oil companies are charging more for gasoline than they should be, and I have not heard him comment on the fact that people in northern Ontario are paying so much more for gasoline. He will know that the heads of BP and Shell have said the price of gasoline could be substantially lower than it is. They have admitted that.

If that is the case, does he believe the government should use its constitutional power to implement legislation so the government can intervene and lower the price of gasoline to where it should be in relation to the price of crude oil? I know he will want to get up to speak on this issue, reply to this question and say what his party's views are on this matter.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Brantford.

Mr. Gillies: What a thoroughly thrilling debate. I have never had so much --

The Acting Speaker: Order. I made a mistake; I am sorry. The member for Essex South.

Mr. Mancini: I want to say to the honourable member for Brantford that while we found his speech entertaining, it was without a lot of facts. The comments he made on the lack of initiatives on behalf of this government are absolutely untrue. All the member has to do is take a few moments and --

Mr. Cureatz: Is the member for Essex South calling him a liar?

Mr. Mancini: No. I would never do that. He should take a few moments to review some of the initiatives this government has been able to get approved through the Legislature.

My other comment to the member is that I do not think he will get very far criticizing one of our most esteemed members of the Legislature here in this House. I do not think he is going to go very far criticizing the Treasurer.

Mr. Gillies: I see I have only two minutes to reply to all this, but I will do my best. I say first to my friend the member for Essex South that I would be the last to criticize my good friend the Treasurer, a man for whom I have the greatest esteem, a friend and a neighbour. That is one of the reasons I am so disappointed in this budget; it really was not worthy of him.

I share the honourable member's affection for the man, and I share his frustration at being one of those parliamentary assistants who the Minister of Education of some years ago called "not worthy of the powder to blow them to hell." I think the member for Essex South should be in a position to answer questions in this House. He has a tremendous contribution to make.

The member for Frontenac-Addington asked me where we would get the money to reduce the gasoline tax. We would get it through increased revenues and from the approximately $300 million that is unaccounted for in this budget which we in this party believe the government is holding for election goodies.

I say to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who asked me about Bill 94, the extra billing bill, our party is opposed to this legislation and will oppose it strenuously, but I assure him there will not be any untoward delay or filibuster regarding that bill such as the filibuster the NDP had about Bill 141. We would not do that.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked whether I believe the oil companies are charging too much for gasoline. Yes, I do. Do I believe they are charging far too much in the north? Yes, I do. Should the government intervene? If we had a government that really cared about it, I am sure it would, but the government is there because the NDP put it there, and I am sure the NDP finds that very frustrating.

Finally, to my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), I take all of what he is saying as, "Is this a budget of lost opportunities?" Yes, this is a budget of lost opportunities.

Mr. South: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to clarify my statement. It was $700 million, not $700,000.

Mr. Breaugh: As we go through the open stages of this session with a speech from the throne and a budget and while we have not quite gotten into our full legislative load, it is interesting that people are settling into their different roles. One of things I find most amazing is the born-again Tories; people who raised gasoline taxes consistently year after year and got it down to such a fine art that the raises came about automatically. They discovered the ad valorem tax so they did not have to bother with a law any more or the inconvenience of parliamentary debate. They just socked it to the consumer automatically.

It is quite phenomenal to sit in the chamber and listen to the debate on the throne speech, where we find how wonderfully revived they are in opposition; how a political party that for a decade resisted strongly and passionately the idea of equal pay for work of equal value, the moment it is in the opposition, is transformed into an advocate of that.

If we ever had any doubts about the accord and about what might happen if the Tories were not the government in Ontario, we must all go to sleep each night now feeling that this has been a good exercise for everyone involved. In opposition, the Tories have found a social conscience; in opposition, they have summoned up the courage to do all those things they had resisted over the years. When we talk about child care facilities, they are born again; when we talk about gasoline tax, they are born again; when we talk about helping the north, they are born again. It surely has been a most positive experience.

Let me turn now to this budget. I report to the Treasurer that we have had an opportunity -- all of us, I am sure -- to do what I did: go back home and listen in the pool halls, in the legions, on the streets, in the shopping centres and in the rinks to what people have had to say. I report to the Treasurer that the word on the street in Oshawa is that this is all right. That may not sound like much of a compliment, but in Oshawa that is as good as it gets. It does not get any better than that. If you are in politics in Oshawa, you know you will not get praised to the hilt. If people say, "It is all right," they mean you are doing your job.

It is strange that this is the attitude. For example, I have tried to convince people there actually is a provincial income tax. Most people are not aware of that, and most of them do not believe me when I tell them, "Yes, you pay provincial income tax." They miss it on the form somehow.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I tried that for years too. I have given up.

Mr. Breaugh: That is right. It was so well hidden by the previous government, done with such great skill, that it is an uphill struggle to convince them that about half of what they pay in income tax goes to Ontario. They firmly believe it all goes to Ottawa.

There is something else I found strange. In all of this budget there is not a great deal that did very much for anybody. In fact, if one gets right down to it, what is good about this budget is that the Treasurer has promised he will not beat you quite as much any more. People out there are saying, "God, it feels so good that he has stopped, that this is okay." Maybe it is the mindset of Ontarians. They are used to abuse. They are used to being taxed every time they turn around. They pay tax when they buy chocolate bars, they pay tax when they buy gasoline, they pay tax when they go to a show. Every time they move, someone collects a tax from them, and they seem to be well accustomed to it.

One of the things that is obvious with this budget -- because it is not exactly a sensational piece of work here -- is that the Treasurer will never be accused of being overly influenced by the London School of Economics. This is not Keynesianism or Galbraithianism or any of that. This is straight Earl's Shell service right here on paper, and I hope the Treasurer paid Earl and the boys a good consulting contract, because their stamp is clearly on this budget. We all have an Earl's Shell service where we consult with those who are wise in our community, and it is good for us.

However, it is also a very political document. It is quite good at that, and I want to pay some compliments here. I am sure that at some point just prior to the session, the Premier and the Treasurer sat down and had a little chat. The Premier said something like this to the Treasurer: "Robert, we had a little kerfuffle in the fall over your gasoline tax. Do not mess with that any more. Just leave well enough alone. Do not forget anybody, but do not do anything to anybody. In particular, do not do anything for anybody. Make this a budget that will be hard to hate. Make sure there are no lumps on the outside that can be chopped off."

He succeeded at doing that. One has to struggle to work up a hate for this budget. It does not tax anybody any more. I imagine the party to my extreme right over here will manage to vote against the budget, but it will have some difficulty because most of what this Treasurer has put in place in this budget came out of previous Treasurers' budgets. We have to remember that.

6 p.m.

If he did not take away the Ontario health insurance plan premiums totally, we can curse him gently, but we will also have to remind people where the OHIP premiums came from before. I remember Darcy McKeough's famous words: "The OHIP premium is the best kind of tax. Nobody knows it is a tax, and it is already in place." It is not identifiable as a tax measure.

In reviewing the comments around the budget, I noticed part of what Eric Dowd, one of our senior reporters here, had to say was that this is very much something from what he refers to as "the Teflon-coated Premier." That is not a bad tag to stick on the Premier these days, because there is not much else sticking to him. It is also true, as Eric pointed out in his column, that this government made its first move on social issues. It has not succeeded at getting very many of those things translated into law yet, but an avalanche of initiatives was taken and now this government is making its move towards the business side of the ledger. It is making a move to look fiscally responsible in this budget. I have never felt so fiscally responsible in my entire life as I do now.

The moves are there. One is left with the political argument that the deficit was not reduced enough but it was reduced slightly. That is the point. One could argue that not enough people were brought in under the exclusions for OHIP, but some were. Not enough people, low-income earners in particular, were excluded, but some were brought in. Moves were made, very astute political moves, that make this budget as a package work to protect this government. This is not likely to be the budget around which a government would fall, even if there were not an accord, which would also help it a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Even if anybody wanted an election.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a government that is very sensitive to that. Where it ran into little problems in its first run-through, its mini-budget in the fall, it avoided those with this budget. There is a great amount of thoroughness, a lot of detailed thought in this budget. In the words of my friends in Oshawa, the budget is all right. It does not help a lot of folks. It does not show a lot of great initiatives, and there was the opportunity to do that, but the Premier and, in particular this time around, the Treasurer, chose not to exercise those options. It is a safe, reasonable document and I believe that in the long run it will not make him a distinguished Treasurer, but it will keep him as Treasurer for a little while longer.

Let me move to some things in the budget that intrigued me. They are a little new and a little different. First, as part of the budget package, the Treasurer announced a couple of different moves. One we have seen before, but I hope it is going to be carried out a little more effectively. As part of his budget, the Treasurer announced that the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) will now make regular reports to the House on the results of her review of the effectiveness and efficiency of government activities. Let me say amen. It is overdue. Governments around here for a long time have been reviewing how efficiently they operate. There is a simple answer to that: not very efficiently at all.

The other thing about it is that every time they have made a move to cut costs, the move has been clearly a paper move. I happen to have a constituency office across the road from the Treasury building in Oshawa.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The revenue building.

Mr. Breaugh: The revenue building; sorry. For some time I have been aware that as a regular occurrence there whole departments have had their budgets cut. People come across the street to me and say, "What am I going to do? I am out of a job. But they told me if I would only shut my mouth I will not be out of a job. Next week somebody will find another slot for me, either in this ministry or in another one."

We are aware that the previous government developed a whole set of classifications for employees: temporary permanent; part-time temporary; temporary part-time. Whole mobs of folks who are not considered to be civil servants are now out there working in the civil service because somebody thought up new classifications for them and they do not appear as civil servants.

The previous government led us on a merry chase saying that it had actually reduced the number of civil servants in Ontario. We followed them around the block to find out that very often the same person was working at the same desk doing almost exactly the same job the week after his job had been done away with. They reappeared as contract employees or as part-time employees.

Members of all parties now are going through the hoops explaining to people why in some instances it might be better to be a part-time employee than a permanent employee; why our psychiatric hospitals are staffed with a lot of part-time employees who do not get benefits and they are working right beside part-time employees who do get benefits. It is difficult to explain that to them because from the point of view of management and the provision of services, it makes no sense at all. From the government's point of view of becoming leaner and meaner and having fewer people on the books officially working for the Ontario government, it makes a lot of sense.

As the minister reports to the House, I ask that we have opportunities to take a look at whether a cost saving actually turns out to be a cost saving and whether it is a sensible thing to do. I am afraid that much of what I have seen over the past few years that was touted as being more efficient turned out to be a simple change in accounting practices. No money was saved. If anything, it put somebody's job at risk or it lessened the job security of somebody who was a very useful person in the civil service.

That whole exercise has to be carried on with a vengeance. I know Management Board of the previous cabinet took a run at this. A number of people have been aware that governments sometimes have some problems in delivering service. The difficulty I see is that very often the provision of service is the last thing on the government's mind. When I say the "government" here, I mean it in the broadest sense.

I wish I could say that I believe even this Treasurer, whom I have known for some time and have a lot of respect for, really knew what every civil servant in the Ministry of Revenue does, but he does not and he cannot. That is not possible; so we depend on others who manage the system here.

I am afraid what has happened over the years is that we have created a bit of a monster. We do not quite have the grasp on the provision of services that we want. What angers me most of all about this is that very often a government will say: "That is something we should do. Clearly, we ought to provide more child care spaces, but we simply cannot afford to do that. The reason we cannot afford to do that is we cannot provide the spaces efficiently."

Oddly enough, in my community, for example, we have not built an additional day care facility in about a decade. We have had the vast expansion of child care facilities in the private sector. We do not have much of a grasp; we assume the care given in those facilities is good. We have civil servants writing rules about how to provide child care. We have others writing new rules about what a child care facility has to look like.

We have people who are enforcing building codes, fire codes and every other code that one can imagine, some of which leads me to believe we are expending a lot of energy and money regulating something that does not need it. I have had an opportunity to go through some of the regulations that did not make any sense to me or to the child care providers. The end result is that it limits our ability as a Legislature. It limits the government's ability as a government to provide services.

We all have stories or our own little anecdotes about how governments provide services. Here is my favourite. I wanted a plug moved in an office I had. The next day -- and it takes the next day before the process even starts -- I was introduced to a building engineer. I said: "I do not need an engineer. I want somebody to move a plug." The following day, I was introduced to an architect. I said: "I do not need an architect. I want an electrician to move a plug." The third day, a guy came in with a set of plans already drawn up about how they would have to remove one wall and reinforce the floor to put in a plug.

After about the second week of all this, I said, "Can anybody get me an extension cord?" They said, "We do not do that." I asked the logical question, "Why do you not do that?" It turned out there was no real reason they did not do that; it is just that governments do not function that way. First, they want to redesign the whole building and then they will provide some sort of service.

The Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet sure has her work cut out for her, because there is a mindset on how government operates that will be terribly difficult to take apart. I want to put the case that I believe it needs to be done; it needs to be done with some compassion. The purpose of the exercise, in my view, should not be to be necessarily leaner and meaner. It ought to be simply to produce efficiency so that better services can be provided. That is a distinction not many governments seem to have the ability to make. They know how to cut departments, stop services and prevent services from being provided, but they have not yet learned the trick of how to provide better and more efficient services to people. That ought to be the bottom line. That should be what it is all about.

6:10 p.m.

I want to point out a couple of other examples that I think are important.

Pension plans in the private sector and in the public sector are difficult to examine. I am pleased the Treasury staff is going to review that. I am somewhat concerned that we gather up large amounts of money in public and private pension plans and do not deliver much in the way of a service to the people who are paying into the plans. I am aware that a number of people in my municipality and across Ontario, who have contributed to government-sponsored public pension plans over the years, are not going to have the pensions they deserve at the end of their years of service. That is a problem. There is a difficulty with all of this.

We have had an argument during question period as to whether private pension plans are being properly looked after. I have had plants close in my riding. Workers in the plants, some of them management people, came to me and said: "Here is my private pension plan. I contributed to this plan and I thought the thing was locked up and put away and no one could take it." They subsequently found out that management can and has taken money out of private plans and gone elsewhere with it. They have closed the plant and taken the money out of the pension plan. The regulatory agencies say it is legal. They do not often cast moral judgements on this, but they say it is legal. I am going to make the argument that it should not be.

When people invest money in a pension plan, it ought to be there and it ought to be sacred. Some smart person in management should not be able to get a good lawyer, go off to a regulatory agency, dip into a private or public pension plan and take the money elsewhere. That is still happening. Whether or not it is legal is a moot point as far as I am concerned. I believe it is immoral to do it. If they have good lawyers, more credit to them, but the obligation then falls on the government actually to do something about it. So far, it has not done it.

Let me move to a couple of other things that are of concern to me.

In this budget there are a number of things that I guess one would classify as cost-saving techniques. I want to give a couple of examples of the type of thing we ought to do more of.

It has always bothered me immensely that if someone commits a crime, we think absolutely nothing, in the whole judicial process, of spending literally thousands of dollars to prosecute somebody. At the end of the process, we will spend thousands more to incarcerate that person in jail. We never take the time to ask, "Is there anything we can do that would stop people getting themselves into hot water?" Governments ought to do a lot more of that. They ought to do more educating and more crime prevention in schools, in the work place, in the marketplace and wherever they can to see that fewer people commit crimes.

I know the Ontario Provincial Police has some programs such as this, but they are almost an afterthought, almost public relations. In a number of areas we wait until someone breaks the law. At that point, there is no such thing as expense; it is "Hang the expense" at that point. The whole court system kicks in; the whole judicial system kicks in; all the detention methods kick in. I want the government to turn slightly and say that prevention ought to be a major part of it when we are talking about problems with crime.

One of the examples we have in here is that there now will be some adjustment to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in the way it can allocate settlements. I welcome that, but I think this is probably a good example of what we have been doing wrong. This is a case where we will spend inordinate amounts of money in some instances on the court process and on jailing people. Then we turn to the victims of crime and say: "Here is a couple of hundred bucks. You should be happy with that." That is all they could get. In here, there is the recognition I am looking for, but not a major recognition.

As part of the government's move to try to become a little more efficient, one thing it might do is to try a preventive approach. In the case of the environment, for example, if there is a major environmental spill, all hell breaks loose now. We measure, test and clean up; we do all that. Would we not be better off to make sure the spill never occurred? Would that not be a better way to spend public money? In almost every area of endeavour, we can identify ways in which we could prevent the event from happening, whether it is in the criminal courts, the environment or wherever. I encourage the government to take those initiatives.

I want to move to something I mentioned a little bit the other day in the debate on the throne speech. I am becoming very agitated over a trend that I see developing in this country and elsewhere of government courting and subsidizing industry. Some would call this a kind of corporate socialism. Maybe I am the wrong person to pursue this argument, but I am going to pursue it anyway.

It was not very long ago that the government in Ontario moved to say to municipalities: "You cannot be out there in the marketplace trying to outbid one another. You cannot be offering incentives to industry. You cannot give them free land; you cannot dispense with property taxes for 10 years; you cannot give them a grant of half a million dollars."

The government of Ontario said, and rightly, that no one wins that game. The only people who win there are the industries. The industries do not necessarily want these grants, but if they are going, they will take them. It would be dumb not to do so.

I find this government doing exactly the same thing. I want to make an argument here that this is a North American phenomenon that is certainly spreading, and here is another area in which the government has to stop and analyse what it is doing.

The example that comes to mind is the Toyota plant that has gone into a different part of central Ontario. There was a case where the government said, "This is great stuff." It is, in one sense: New jobs will be generated in an area of the province that needs some job initiatives.

The government said at the time that there would be no cost to the local municipalities. It turns out that there is quite a substantial cost to the local municipalities. According to newspaper stories, whereas the estimate was that this was a $400-million Toyota development that was not supposed to cost Cambridge anything, they are still adding up how much it is going to cost the city because, as events have turned out, Cambridge is into building roads and sewers and opening up adjacent land because the Toyota deal is the key that unlocks some land that happens to be owned by the province in that area.

The cost to the taxpayers, according one press report I have here, is going to turn out to be something like $74,000 per job. That is getting a little expensive. I know the government of Ontario is competing with American jurisdictions where this is the exact status quo. You cannot go through any Sunbelt state where they are not heavily into subsidizing foreign corporations, and in particular the foreign auto makers, to come and build cars in the United States.

It is weird that this would come out of the US, which is the bastion of free enterprise. One would think that in the American political system, to suggest that the taxpayers should subsidize the private sector would be seen as almost morally corrupt, that this would be quite wrong. Yet in all the states -- in Kentucky, in Ohio and in California -- this is the kind of job offer that is there.

The question I want governments to ask themselves is, what kind of role do the grants play? Do they really make a difference in whether a plant such as Toyota's comes to Ontario? I want to make an argument today that I am not convinced for a minute that they do.

I understand why any corporation would come knocking on the door of the Treasurer and ask, "Have you got a few million for me?" That is quite natural. However, it has also been my experience that when they make the business decision to locate a plant in Ontario, it is locked up and put away and there is nothing you are going to do that will change their minds at that point.

There are very few who actually ask for this money. There are very few who would list it at the top of their personal criteria for site selection. There are a lot of things an industry wants when it moves a new plant into production. It does not have at the top of its list a handout from the government.

I know the tendency to give them some money is there because somebody else is offering them money. However, I would also point out that there are hard-nosed business reasons for these investments, and they do not turn on how much money they can milk out of a government. When we encourage this kind of plant, let us look at all sides of the ledger, and there are a number of sides.

6:20 p.m.

To put a plant like the Toyota plant into Cambridge is fine. To say we are doing so without adding additional costs to municipalities is silly. We should all know that. With the amount of grant money given by the government in skills training programs and in a variety of means, of tax incentives and providing them with lands and services, we should at least be aware that this is costing the taxpayers money. Then we should assess whether it really makes a difference. Is it a critical difference that makes them change their minds and come here instead of building in Quebec or the Maritimes?

I put to the members that any auto producer in the world is very likely to wind up in Ontario for the simple reason that it can build the cars here in Ontario and get them south into the US, where the marketplace is. That is the biggest single point for auto makers coming to Canada. They are responding to the government of Canada, it is true, and its request that they build some production facilities here, but I believe most of them, particularly the Japanese auto makers, are looking at an American market and the advantages that are there under the auto pact itself. They want that access point.

I remind the government that with or without its government grants and its subsidization of the private sector here, these people have an ability to come into this province and put together a vehicle at a substantially reduced price. The difference right now very simply is the dramatic difference in the Canadian dollar versus the American dollar.

They can come into a Canadian production facility and pay the United Auto Workers wages, which are pretty substantial -- they are not cheap, but they can pay a good dollar here to a Canadian auto worker -- and use an exchange rate that gives them a tremendous cost advantage when they move into an American market.

That is probably the biggest single critical factor in their decision. We give them cheap labour -- not dirt-cheap but cheap labour. We give them good transportation facilities. We provide them with excellent services and an ability to start up a plant. We are assisting them with technology.

Having done all those things, I do not believe we need to give them free land or a grant. I would like the members of the government to take a look at that process and have some hard and fast notions in their minds before they continue with that.

Let me mention a couple of other areas where I think the government has not quite done all it could. I start by saying that I know this one is not easy. In a number of areas of Ontario, some schools are lying empty and some schools are overcrowded. For the most part, the separate school system has a big problem with portables. I have whole schools that are portables. We have examples of that here in Toronto. We have other public schools that are lying vacant for the most part.

The logical thing from anybody's point of view is that one school board ought to talk to the other school board and come up with some type of lease arrangement. This is easy to say but not easy to do. I know that as someone who tried to match needs in my municipality while on city council. We needed to develop a sports facility. We had the money to build the facility, but we did not have the money to buy the land. We approached our local community college, Durham College, and said: "You have a field and you do not have the money to put up facilities there. We have the money for the facilities; you have the property. Let us see what we can do."

I had assumed after my committee at the council made this decision and met with Durham College that all our civil servants would go around, work out the details and come back with planning reports and things such as that. About six months later, I asked what had happened to that concept. The staff on both sides said: "We just could not make it work. It was not possible." It was my first introduction to competing interests.

There are people working for us who have a lot of things on their minds and at the bottom of that list may well be a simple idea such as sharing. They do not want to and they do not need to. They are giving up their own turf, so to speak, so it is difficult to make it happen. I know this problem persists, and I want this government to say to municipalities, to school boards and to itself, "This may be a little tough, and it may not be the way a bureaucracy has always worked, but we cannot continue to build duplicate facilities, often across the road from one another, for ever and a day."

I am reminded that in many communities around Ontario, I have seen hospitals across the street from one another and they might just as well be thousands of miles apart. They never talk to one another; they do not want to and they will not. I have been to a lot of communities.

In my own, I have two boards of education. One is on the south side of Rossland Road with a very fine education centre, and one is on the north side of Rossland Road with an equally fine education centre. If anyone suggested that one education centre would service my community, they would all go nuts. It is beyond their realm of comprehension. They do not want to do it. They give eight million good reasons why they cannot do it; so it never happens.

I am going to make the argument that the day of that kind of duplication is going quickly. We should do something that facilitates it, whether it is with school boards, municipalities or even ministries. Many of us have had the joy of trying to work with two different ministries on a project and it is not easy. They want their own turf. They want to do it their own way. They want to assume the responsibility for the budget. They want to have the employees under their jurisdiction. I do not think we can do this much more.

I know this is an old idea, but it has not taken hold in this province. I am begging the government to take some initiatives in this regard. I believe strongly that one of the reasons we cannot do a number of things is that it is not merely a matter of doing it once; it is also a matter of doing it twice and three times, depending on how many ministries or levels of government there are.

I have been intrigued by a number of things that have come across my desk in the past little while. I was intrigued to know that a study had been done by Woods Gordon for the Podiatric Medical Association. I did not know that last year podiatrists saved the Ministry of Health $13 million. I was taken aback even more to know that last year $8.7 million was saved on bunion operations. That is a lot of money. Hammer-toe corrections saved $1.6 million. Toe nail removers saved $2.6 million. It goes back to who runs the show and whose ox is gored.

I am reminded on a daily basis that a lot of people who could provide good, top-quality medical care are not allowed to do it, but in a strange way they are allowed to do it. There is a system set up called the Ontario health insurance plan. In the process the doctors are at the top of the heap. Often, people such as physiotherapists who actually provide the service to the public operate under the supervision, it says, of the physician, but the physician is never there. The physician does not provide the care; the physiotherapist does. The only way the billing process can work is back through the doctor and back through OHIP.

I want a good look taken at all the people who provide medical care to see whether we can devise a better way of funding the process. I am reminded that we cannot do it all the way everybody out there wants us to do it. It is our obligation to look at how we can provide better health care by funding it in a different way. That is about as far as I want it to go. In the health care field in particular, there is an abundance of examples of that.

Let me conclude by looking at one other thing that I notice the Treasurer has said twice now, which I think is important. He has talked about the Legislature's standing committee on finance and economic affairs having a role to play in setting budgets. Let me encourage him on that. I believe it is an important missing ingredient in all this.

We just had a discussion with some visitors from the Northwest Territories. It is ludicrous that the budget for Ontario rips through here without any of us, including the Treasurer, really knowing what is going on. Our municipalities can put together their budgets and every member of a council has a chance to examine in open session what are being established as priorities, how a problem is being addressed and what is being done to resolve a difficulty in a neighbourhood. If our municipalities can put together a budget in that way, why can we not do so? Why can our finance committee not at least begin the process of letting the members have some input into that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Done.

Mr. Breaugh: He has said it twice. Now I am going to sit and watch it happen. I hope it will happen, and I encourage him in all those endeavours.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the member on that committee too?

Mr. Breaugh: No, I am not on that committee, but I happen to have a little to do with setting it up. I make these remarks because what I am searching for is a change in the way governments put together budgets and finance their projects. I am looking for a lot more accountability than we now have. I am also looking for a little ingenuity. The boys at Earl's Shell service did not quite do it all for me this time, but I hope they will have at least one more chance to put together a budget and be a little more imaginative the next time around.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the request that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) gave notice of his dissatisfaction with a response by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

I do not see the member for Brantford.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: I find it difficult to accept a point of order because a motion is deemed to have been made. If the member and the minister are not here --

Mr. Harris: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker: For the smooth operation of the Legislature, now that we are deemed to have adjourned, is the 10-minute response period to the member's speech the first order of business when this debate resumes?

Mr. Speaker: The House is deemed to have been adjourned for the business requested by the member for Brantford. I do not see the member for Brantford and I do not see the Minister of Labour. Therefore, I deem the motion to adjourn to have been carried.

The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.