Journal des débats 1986-oct-15 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Cousens: I want to congratulate the residents of Metropolitan Toronto, the Daily Bread Food Bank, Loblaws Ltd. and the Toronto Star for a tremendously successful food drive. The Share Thanksgiving fall food drive in six days collected $1.2 million worth of groceries. It is estimated that one in 10 Toronto residents took part in the drive, which supplied food to the city's hungry through 140 relief agencies.

Last winter, 38,000 people in Metro Toronto received food from soup kitchens and food banks. This year, agencies such as the Scott Mission, Second Harvest, the Daily Bread Food Bank and Stop 103 are serving far more people than ever before. This summer's demand from Metro Toronto's hungry was more than four times that of last year, and that was during the slow season. Winter is when the crunch really starts.

Unfortunately, in a few months the whole problem will begin again, as the supply of food gathered at Thanksgiving is depleted. The trend of more and more people eating meals at soup kitchens and using food banks is alarming. It tells us that social assistance programs are not covering even basic needs. Those directly involved cite the lack of affordable housing as the major reason for the added pressure on food banks. Soup kitchens and hostels are Band-Aid solutions to poverty.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has failed to address the issue of the hungry and the homeless in Toronto and the rest of the province. Is he going to continue to hide behind his review of the social welfare system or, as the winter weather approaches, will he, in conjunction with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), show leadership in addressing the concerns of the province's poor?

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Grande: I stand today to encourage the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to withdraw Bill 38, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. If the government has its way, this amendment will end the dedication of the profits from provincial lottery games to culture, recreation, sports and physical fitness. This amendment was arrived at by the government without any prior consultation with any of the affected communities and their constituents. So much for the open government concept.

Bill 38 does not extend lottery profits designation to cancer treatment hospitals and university research in addition to sports and cultural activities. Instead, it channels all lottery profits to the general consolidated revenue fund without providing any guarantees that the money will be spent on what it was intended for. This is a raid that will leave hundreds of community groups in every corner of Ontario in a lurch and unable to pursue their activities in the arts, recreational sports and physical fitness.

This is not the first raid. In May, this government, behind closed doors, removed by order in council the requirements that Interprovincial Lottery profits be spent on health, environment-related health research and hospital capital construction.

Bill 38 represents an attempt by the Liberals to break the trust that exists between the Ontario government and the arts. Bill 38 destroys the partnership between the government and our municipalities, recreational groups and sports organizations. We are informed that the pressure is on to recall Bill 38. We will oppose this bill if the Treasurer does not withdraw it.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Cordiano: I am pleased to report on the success of the summer employment programs operated by the Ministry of Skills Development.

Members will recall that the minister announced in January an allocation of $43.8 million to provide 61,000 summer jobs. Through Experience `86, more than 7,000 students were employed in career-related jobs by more than 100 ministries and associated organizations. Another 862 students accepted the challenge of starting their own businesses with interest-free loans through the ministry's student venture capital program.

The Ontario youth employment program provided a wage subsidy of $1.25 an hour to employers to encourage them to create new summer jobs. Many thousands of employers applied to the program. The deadline for claims is January 31, 1987, but it will be February before we have our final figures. We fully expect to exceed our goal of 53,000 jobs.

Many young people find their own jobs. In five communities, volunteers assisted nearly 14,000 young people in finding employment locally through job blitzes in Metro Toronto, the national capital region, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and North Bay. I salute all these volunteers and all the employers who took part in these campaigns. With their special efforts and the support of provincial and federal summer employment programs, the past summer has been one of the best for job hunters in the 1980s.

PAEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE TRANSPORT PROGRAM

Mr. Andrewes: In the past two years, there has been a significant reduction in the number of paediatric residents in post-graduate education programs. At the McMaster University Medical Centre, the paediatric critical care program was able to assist in staffing the paediatric critical care transport facility. This meant that critically ill children would be accompanied during transport from one hospital to another by a trained specialist.

Recently, the McMaster medical centre, which has been carrying on the total cost of this program through its global budget, has notified area hospitals that it is discontinuing its paediatric critical care transport program and is forced to substitute a program of reduced service. This is unfortunate, to say the least, but even more astounding is the fact that this announcement comes at a time when the government of Ontario brags repeatedly about how it has improved health care accessibility in the province.

It is galling when the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) speaks so proudly of our health care system as he announces yet another capital construction program, while at the same time the individual operating costs of hospitals across the province are coming under increasing pressure. Surely, if the Minister of Health wants to crow about improved accessibility, he must accept the criticism from an outstanding health care facility such as McMaster for failing to fund properly existing programs, which will see the quality of health care in the Hamilton-Niagara region deteriorate.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Allen: Under the current Liberal government, as under the past Conservative regime, this province is still lagging behind the other nine provinces in the country in its level of university funding. It is a scandal that at this time the system is, in effect, $170 million in arrears in per capita student funding, that it needs $233 million more in order to reach the level of per capita funding across the country and that it requires $450 million to reach the national average level in terms of per $1,000 of personal income. Yet this government has locked itself into four per cent inflation level increases for last year and this coming year.

The minister professes sympathy to this situation, and yet he tells the university presidents that this government will get elected in any case, regardless of what it does about universities.

While student enrolments have been up 25 per cent, funding is down 16 per cent in real terms. It gives me no pleasure, therefore, to send the minister a plaque naming him as the second recipient of the national basement funding award in university funding.

I appeal to him to increase university level funds to national level grants and to send the university system in this province to the proper track with respect to the support necessary for the government's economic programs to reach fulfilment.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is with special pride that I point out to you on behalf of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) that the number one event in Canada is on right now in Kitchener-Waterloo. That is our famous Oktoberfest, which will be on until next Saturday night. The Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest is the largest Bavarian festival on the North American continent and the second largest in the world.

Last year more than 600,000 visitors were treated to an impressive lineup of top-notch events and attractions. The same thing is going on this year, including fest halls, sporting events and art displays. The turnout is better than ever. Despite the outstanding growth rate, Oktoberfest has still managed to maintain the authentic German flavour that is rooted in centuries-old traditions. I believe that the spirit of gemutlichkeit personifies the spirit of Oktoberfest and that of our community as a whole. There is still time, please come. Oktoberfest ist wunderbar. Prost.

An hon. member: Ein prosit.

APPOINTMENT OF REEVE

Mr. Pope: In the 10 seconds that are left, I wish to join my colleagues in the condemnation of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in its treatment of the citizens of Chapleau, not only with respect to the election of a mayor, which is their democratic right, but also with respect to Cedar Grove Lodge and the failure of this ministry to meet with the citizens, the cancellation of meetings and the failure to hold --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fish: Shame.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for members' statements.

14:13

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER

Hon. Mr. Peterson: On behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, I would like to extend congratulations to University of Toronto professor John Polanyi on being chosen to share the 1986 Nobel prize for chemistry.

Dr. Polanyi was honoured for his groundbreaking work in developing a method of infrared chemiluminescence, pivotal in the development of lasers. All Ontarians will take pride in this tremendous honour accorded Dr. Polanyi, who has been with the department of chemistry at the University of Toronto since 1956.

This serves to remind us of Ontario's tremendous potential to break new ground in science and technology. It also reminds us of the enormous contribution that has been made by those who came to Canada from other lands. I believe it is especially appropriate that this honour should be conferred on Dr. Polanyi, who escaped Nazi Germany as a child and who has worked tirelessly for peace as an adult, in the same year that Elie Weisel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure all Ontarians share in this great honour and extend their heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Polanyi.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask. Is there agreement with the House? Fine. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: I should briefly like to join the Premier in recognizing these two particular awards of the Nobel prize. It is an opportunity for all of us here to reflect upon the very massive contributions that have been made by Canadians from all walks of life and from all backgrounds.

It is particularly noteworthy for us to rise on this day and contemplate that within yards of where we sit this afternoon, a great institution lies -- the University of Toronto -- where some of this world-leading research was carried on and some of these major breakthroughs occurred.

It is a time for all of us to share a bit in the tremendous honour that has been bestowed upon Dr. Polanyi and as well to reflect on the importance of the work we do here, which does not cause these things to happen but in a small way allows them to be developed and researched by people who have come to this land and who live here.

As the Premier has properly noted, it is appropriate that Dr. Polanyi share this moment in his life with Elie Weisel, who has spoken articulately, clearly, often, passionately and emotionally about the Holocaust and who has worked so hard to make sure the lessons that should have been learned continue to remain in the forefront of our consciences and minds. As Elie Weisel would want to remind us, one ought to reflect on this day on how many people perished in the Holocaust who could have matched, equalled and perhaps added to the tremendous contributions Dr. Polanyi, one who escaped the Holocaust, has made.

Among us is a survivor, someone who escaped beforehand and who has made an enormous contribution. As we share in the pride that he must feel, we must also stand back and reflect that thousands of other advances could have been made if so many like him had not perished while so many others stood quietly and watched.

Mr. Rae: It is with great joy and pride that I and my colleagues join in the celebration in this House, as will take place across Canada, of the award that was announced this morning by the Nobel committee to a truly remarkable Canadian and a wonderfully fine and sensitive human being whom many of us know, John Polanyi.

The Polanyi family is truly one of the remarkable families, not simply of this country, but also of the world. Refugees from central Europe, they have enlivened the mind, the intelligence, the soul and the civilization of Canada, as well as of the United States and Great Britain. They have been among the most remarkable teachers of their generations. Canada and Toronto have been privileged to be the home of a most remarkable man, a great scientist, who has contributed in the way described by the Premier -- and those of us who are not scientists have to take this on the word of those who are -- to the development of the laser.

I do not know John Polanyi as a scientist in that sense. I simply know him as someone whom I have always admired as a member of the university community and, particularly, as someone I have come to admire and know for his contribution to world peace. He has never hesitated to speak out for the cause of disarmament. He has been a leader among world scientists in attempting to develop a sense of conscience and commitment to the cause of world peace. He has a marvellous self-deprecating sense of humour and he has been an enormously civilized asset to the life of the community that is the University of Toronto, a community of which at times I still feel a part, and of Ontario and our country.

It is perhaps also worth noting that Dr. Polanyi's daughter has been from time to time a member of our community as a member of the press gallery. We would want to take note of that fact as well.

In response to comments made by the leader of the Conservative Party, it was 20 years ago at the Shaarei Shomayim synagogue that I first heard Elie Weisel speak of the Holocaust. I have heard him many times since in Canada, England and the United States. To meet him and listen to him is truly to listen to the voice of the ages. It is a remarkable tribute to him, to the Jewish people and to those who have survived the ghastly, historical experience of the Holocaust that the Nobel committee has chosen to recognize him. All of us and so many Canadians who have been touched by the words and the presence of Elie Weisel want to salute him, and I know the Legislature would want to express that today.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am pleased to table the annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens for the fiscal year 1985-86.

The advisory council, which reports to me, is made up of a group of knowledgeable and dedicated individuals who provide advice to the government concerning issues that affect the wellbeing of seniors in the province. I am pleased that Mrs. Ivy St. Lawrence, the chairman of the council, is with us in the gallery today.

During the past year, the council has presented me with a number of excellent reports on health promotion and prevention, Alzheimer's disease, abuse of the elderly and a proposal for a bill of rights for residents of long-term care facilities. The council is currently addressing a number of issues such as support to family care givers, education of health care givers and other personnel and transportation needs of the elderly. I am pleased that these reports are available now for members of the House and they were put in their mailboxes earlier today.

In closing, I would like to say how much I value the advice given to me and the government by the members of the council, as well as that provided to me by other individuals and senior citizens' organizations across the province. Their knowledge and wise counsel are very important as this government addresses the issues affecting the quality of life of our senior citizens, and particularly as we implement our new agenda.

Mr. Dean: I am pleased to stand and respond briefly to the statement by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs.

As he said, this is the report of a very worthwhile committee that the government has seen fit to continue from the previous government. The Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens is one of the most valuable councils we have in Ontario.

My experience with them in my former capacity on the government benches led me to have a great respect for the accumulated wisdom, but at the same time, the vigour and the initiative that the members of the council always portrayed in the advice they gave the government through me and now through the minister. I compliment them, especially the chairman, Mrs. St. Lawrence, for another good report.

I am sorry to say that in contrast to the good report, however, in spite of needling from the minister, the government does not seem to have come across with many of the things the seniors themselves say are necessary for the better life we all know the seniors need.

To single out only one example, mention is made in the report of the need for more attention to Alzheimer's disease. On pages 14 and 15, there are no fewer than 20 separate worthwhile recommendations for the consideration of the government. I want the members of the assembly to contrast that with the rather pathetic attempt the government has made to address it up to this point by setting aside about $4 million for it. Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), recently pointed out the great divergence between the amount of money and the need. We in this party, on this side of the House, would beef that up by a factor of about three and a half times.

There is a lot of work to be done, and I hope the advisory council will keep on advising the government and that the government will start listening.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Ms. Munro: Recently we have been reading in the newspapers and seeing on television the devastating results of earthquakes in Greece and El Salvador. The scenes are horrifying for all of us, but for Canadians who have family in those two countries the anguish and the fear for relatives and friends is unbearable.

We are well known in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, for our compassion in times such as these. I am sure all members of this House will be pleased to know that once again the Ontario government has agreed to send financial aid to countries in distress.

In September, my colleague the Minister without Portfolio the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) met with representatives from the Greek community and with the Greek consul general. The reconstruction of the hospital of Kalamata was identified as a top priority. To assist in this mission, $100,000 has been made available.

As regards El Salvador, $100,000 is going to the El Salvador Red Cross to be used as it sees appropriate in its relief efforts.

I know all members of this House extend their condolences to the survivors and the families both here and in Greece and El Salvador. Our prayers and thoughts are with each and every person who has been affected by these disasters.

In times of great tragedy, the resilience of the human spirit is amazing. The people of El Salvador and Greece are proving it at this time of great sorrow.

While dollars can never replace the dreadful loss of precious human life, I am sure this entire assembly is pleased that the government can help the countries in their endeavours to rebuild the shattered lives of their surviving citizens.

Mr. Shymko: We find it most commendable that the government is making the humanitarian gesture of extending aid to the victims of the earthquake in El Salvador, as was done in Greece.

I want to point out that there are some jurisdictions in this world where tragedies occur that do not ask for help or sometimes refuse to seek help. I recall the resolution passed unanimously by this House in June in relation to the Chernobyl disaster. I want to ask the minister whether she has considered offering assistance and medical aid through the International Red Cross to the victims of that other terrible tragedy. There are many families and relatives who are Canadians or are related and who share that compassion.

In providing assistance, we sometimes have to initiate it and not wait for a request. I ask the minister to consider offers of assistance in the future even if requests are not made by other governments, so as to continue the tradition of humanitarian compassion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would also like to respond to the offer by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture of $200,000 to the victims of the two earthquakes. We have a large Greek community in this province, and we have major connections with that country as a result of this. Many of us know from our own constituents how difficult it is to know there is a major tragedy in one's home area, with all the problems of communication that usually come with that, not knowing what has happened because of the huge gap and distance and knowing how hard a time it is for those people. It is very important that we make these kinds of gestures.

For the people from El Salvador, a much smaller community, many of whom came to Canada for safe haven from a civil war that has left their lives in peril for reasons other than natural disaster, this has been an especially troubling time because communication with El Salvador is never easy and this time it has been very tough. I was in the region this summer, as the members know. It is disheartening to note the lack of relief work in the barrios in San Salvador itself and to note that most of the relief work of trying to save lives has come in the middle-class districts of the city. That is one of the problems that points up the difficulty of finding time only in times of crisis to make our connection with these countries.

I hope this Legislature will think seriously in the next little while about how we can use our riches in this country to assist countries such as El Salvador, Nicaragua and others to meet these kinds of natural disasters better on their own by helping them with many of their other problems.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INCENTIVE FUND

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have a statement to make on the university research incentive fund. Just before I do that, though, I would like to thank my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) for giving me and our government a 10 in our efforts thus far to address the problems of university underfunding. I think that is very good.

Mr. Rae: It was 10th out of 10. That is last.

Mr. Martel: That is the kind of racehorse you would not want to have running for you.

Mr. McClellan: A minister who cannot add.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: On a more serious note, I would like to add my personal congratulations to Dr. John Polanyi. I can tell members that the entire university community is very proud of him for having that honour bestowed on him.

In addition, I am pleased to inform the House of the introduction of a revised university research incentive fund program. The previous program has been subject to a thorough review, with extensive consultation taking place within the private sector, the universities and other provincial ministries. A co-ordinated effort was required to ensure tha t the limited resources available achieved maximum impact.

Several changes have been made to the program in an effort to make it more effective in stimulating greater research co-operation between the universities on the one hand and the private sector on the other hand and, in addition, to facilitate the transfer of technology.

Under the new program, every $1 invested in an approved research project by a corporation from the private sector will be matched by $1 drawn from the fund.

The university research incentive fund will be used to subsidize the costs of approved research projects that have potential economic benefit for Ontario and that strengthen the partnership between industry and our universities.

Applications will be reviewed by a selection committee consisting of representatives from industry, the universities and government. The committee will base its judgements on the quality of the proposal, the experience of the researchers and the potential economic benefit to the province. In the near future I will announce the membership of that selection committee.

L'économie de l'Ontario repose de plus en plus sur notre aptitude à poursuivre des recherches de classe mondiale. Dans le monde innovateur de la haute technologie, nous devons, pour faire face à la concurrence, tirer profit de nos points forts. Le gouvernement est d'avis que les universités ontariennes ont un rôle important à jouer dans le domaine de la recherche et du développement.

La recherche universitaire représente, comme je l'ai déjà dit, un placement dans l'avenir social et économique de cette province, en plus de contribuer à rehausser la qualité de l'enseignement qui y est dispensé. La recherche menée dans les universités est un important facteur d'innovation, et elle tient un rôle de plus en plus prépondérant dans la transformation et l'essor économiques de la province.

The principle underlying the university research incentive fund, and one I want to emphasize here, is that it is only by working together with our universities that industry and government can provide the support necessary for major research projects.

Mr. McFadden: I found the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities very interesting. It is clear from his statement that he is giving a very solid endorsement to the university incentive fund launched by our party's leader when he was the Treasurer of Ontario. It is clear that through this announcement the government is endorsing the excellent work of that fund. We have, however, a question to ask the minister.

When the fund was launched in the budget a couple of years ago, it was proposed that for every $1 of government funding there should be $2 from the private sector. In the announcement made by the minister today, we notice it is $1 from the private sector for every $1 from the public sector. While there are no figures in this statement, and it would be nice to have some figures as to what it all comes down to, are we to understand from this that there is going to be a major increase in government funding, or are we to infer from this that the incentive fund will have less money available to provide for research in our universities?

We are very pleased to see that the government is endorsing the fund created by our government, but the statement has left a number of important questions unanswered.

Mr. Allen: Responding to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and his statement with respect to research incentive funding for Ontario's universities, we in this party, and I in particular, are delighted that some new guidelines have been attached to this operation of the ministry and that the intent is to ensure that limited resources are available and made to achieve their maximum impact.

There is in the whole statement, however, a curious note which says, "This government recognizes that Ontario universities have a valuable role to play in the area of research and development." If anything, that is a dramatic understatement. The universities of Ontario are in fact the site on which virtually all the fundamental research in this province takes place. They are also the site on which most of the applied research is undertaken. To give them simply a valuable role and not the most valuable role is a significant understatement.

The major problem with regard to research funding in the province, however, has to do with two things. The first is the item I call to the minister's attention by awarding him a 10, not for being 10th at the top but 10th at the bottom as the universities understand in terms of their indicators. Unless one is prepared to put in at the bottom and to provide the core funding and the operational grants that make the rest of the structure and the system function properly, the minister's trickle-down theory, whereby he says he will put money in at the top and see it float down so that it improves teaching and so on, simply will not happen.

The second aspect of a fundamental nature with respect to research funding in this province and across the country is that universities have to expend by and large at least 50 per cent of the value of every research grant in providing overhead costs to make it happen. A recent report surveying the granting systems and the ways in which the universities are compensated in this country as a whole marked Ontario as the province that had the worst record in terms of providing overhead moneys to make it possible for the research grants to be effectively placed and mounted within the university system.

While this is an important initiative -- and I am glad to see it is now dollar for dollar as against one to two -- I hope the minister will go further and find ways to enhance the overhead funding that will enable the universities to carry the research they get in a sponsored fashion, which has been coming in a dramatic way from the private sector. There has been a 34 per cent increase in sponsored research in our system since 1977-78. The private sector knows it can get economic and efficient research in the universities, and it is up to the government to make certain it happens most expeditiously.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With reference to standing order 88(d), there are currently 87 questions standing on Orders and Notices, some of them 10 months old. Our party has raised this matter with you several times in this House, most recently on Thursday, May 8. Some of those same questions still remain unanswered. It is a flagrant abuse for the honourable members of this House. I ask that this matter be yet again brought to the attention of the government in an effort to evoke the respect that these standing orders are due.

Mr. Speaker: The member has brought up a point of order. I certainly hope the appropriate ministers will take note of the request.

14:39

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier with regard to the former Clerk of the Legislature. Yesterday, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who, let us recall, negotiated this arrangement, said, "The former Clerk is entitled to a continuation of his job for as long as he lives or as long as he can perform the job." Was it the Premier's position or belief that the then Clerk could no longer perform his job?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I discussed this yesterday and I would rather not be dragged into personalities on this issue. As I said to the member yesterday, and I think it answers his question, we believed it was time for a change in the Legislature. Certainly, there were consultations with others. The member's party willingly participated in choosing a new Clerk, whom we are delighted to have here. As I read this Legislature, knowing a number of members, that sense was predominant here.

In no way was it an attempt to discredit the former Clerk personally. I really do not want to put these things on an individual or personality level. It was felt we were due for a change here, and that is what led us to the conclusion. As the member knows, Mr. Lewis had served here for a great number of years -- some 40 years, as I recall -- and he was 75 years old. I think there is a sense that no one has the right to a lifetime tenure on any job, that there was probably an error in the drafting of the legislation in 1974 and we should move forward.

Mr. Grossman: The reality is that the Premier made a decision that replacing the Clerk was a priority. The public of Ontario is being asked by the government to provide $91,000 in annual salary, a car and driver, generous office space, $47,000 in costs for an office, a one-time-only payment of $117,000, an annuity that costs $200,000, new office furniture for $8,000 and additional costs.

The public of Ontario is being asked to pay that amount of money to the former Clerk in order to effect the change. I think the public whose money is being spent has a simple question to ask the Premier. Does he think the former Clerk could continue to perform his job? He made the decision, and the public is entitled to know what the Premier of this province thought about the former Clerk's ability to do the job. Then the public can assess whether he made a reasonable deal.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wish the member opposite would not try to drag me into a discussion in which I am not going to participate about the former Clerk's personality or his characteristics one way or the other. I hope the member can keep the discussion above that.

He will recall that the view was that the job of Clerk was equivalent to that of a judge under the old legislation. We wanted to be as fair-minded as we could. The member is critical of the amount that is being discussed. I agree with him that it is a lot of money and it is being discussed by a number of people at present.

Mr. Grossman: While the Premier attempts to rewrite the deal he made to replace the Clerk, the public has one simple question. Did the Premier replace the Clerk just because he felt like spending $2 million to get change or because he thought the public would be better served since the former Clerk was incompetent? If there was no problem with the previous Clerk, if he was capable of doing his job, if the Premier was not discriminating against him because of age, then the public wants to know why it is spending $2 million to effect change at the table.

Hardly any members of the public knew of the former Clerk, knew of the present Clerk or have their daily lives affected by what happens at the table in this assembly. They want to know why the Premier changed the Clerk and whether he believes he was capable of doing the job. He should have the courage to stand up and answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the former Clerk very much appreciates the member's assistance in making him a public figure. I am sure he would want me to express that gratitude to the member on his behalf.

I do not think my honourable friend can have it both ways: on the one hand, argue that the Clerk should have gone on for ever and, on the other hand, say the settlement was too generous. I have difficulty understanding the member's position. Is he saying the Clerk should have stayed, that it was too expensive for him to go or that we should not have treated him in a fair-minded way? I am not sure what he is saying in the circumstances.

I repeat to my friend that many changes have taken place in this House and in the administration of this province; some of which he approves of and some of which he does not, he would not have done them. We know his party's approach to these matters. It had 42 years to do the kinds of things it wanted to do.

Mr. Grossman: We would not have spent $2 million to buy some --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the member's figures are accurate.

Mr. Grossman: We would not have spent $2 million.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend would spend $650 million for an oil company. One can make one's own choices on these matters.

Mr. Epp: They would have spent $3 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: No, we would have left him in the chair. We did not think he was too old to do the job.

Mr. Gillies: We would have put the member in the cabinet.

Mr. Eves: Who is going to be in cabinet first?

Mr. Gillies: The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) wants to answer the questions, not ask them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for the second question.

Mr. Grossman: We think people who are 75 years of age are quite capable of doing the job. We do not fire people because they are 75.

Mr. Martel: The member should be careful with the truth.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let the record show that the member was smiling when he said that.

Mr. Gillies: What happened to the member for Waterloo North's limo?

Mr. Grossman: The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) has it.

Mr. Gillies: How does the member feel about that? The member for Timiskaming is going to be in the cabinet before the member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Grossman: We heard the vote was 49 to 1.

JOBS IN AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. With regard to General Motors looking for skilled workers outside of this country, we now find that while there are 400,000 unemployed Ontarians, the minister was informed of their intent to advertise overseas and was therefore aware of the shortage of skilled tool and die workers to fill the jobs at General Motors. Will the minister outline the specific steps he took after he discovered that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition gets his misinformation. I was not personally informed of their intention to advertise for workers overseas. As to what steps we are taking, he should know, because he has been a Conservative for many years and he has a good affiliation with his party in Ottawa, that long-term industrial and institutional training is the primary responsibility of the federal government. If the Leader of the Opposition is really concerned --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We will give them a chance to hoot and howl. The fact is their Conservative brothers and sisters in Ottawa, through their Canadian job strategy, denied Ontario and Canada some $200 million annually over the next few years in this critical area of skills training. If they are really concerned, their discussion should take place in the first instance in Ottawa.

Mr. Grossman: I presume the minister is talking about the same Prime Minister who was lauded by the Premier when he was in Tokyo as a great conciliator, someone who is bringing Canada together. That is probably the same Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was that your question?

Mr. Grossman: No, it was not. In my supplementary question, I want to ask the minister this question. It was reported in the Toronto Star today that General Motors indicated permission had been obtained "from both Canada Manpower and Ontario's skills development ministry to seek the workers abroad...." His suggestion that he did not know about it indicates either his ministerial incompetence or his unawareness of what is going on in his own ministry.

A group of 83 employers has approached Conestoga College for an apprenticeship program essentially for people who will be equipped to repair the robots that are being installed in the auto plants in Ontario. To date, after many months, Conestoga College cannot get approval from the ministry for the apprenticeship program. Why has the minister refused to approve the apprenticeship program that 83 employers are seeking and that Conestoga College is willing to put in place?

14:50

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition suggested in his initial questions that General Motors consulted me directly about the lack of skilled tradesmen for its Oshawa facilities. Then he read an article about consultation with the Ministry of Skills Development. The fact is that our representations to Ottawa in respect of the lack of skilled tradesmen have fallen on deaf ears.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that it is the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission that makes a determination on whether or not employees can, in effect, be brought in from overseas. It is an immigration question and a determination in that area. We have reminded them about the lack of skilled workers and made every supplication we could think of to this point to suggest that they rework their Canadian job strategy so that training could go on. We will continue to do that and will ensure that training goes on in Ontario.

As for the Conestoga College situation, as the Leader of the Opposition knows the entire apprenticeship system is based on employers' demands and on employers's hiring apprentices, then the system falls into place. We have some concern with the apprenticeship system and we are undertaking a review of it.

Mr. Grossman: With regard to the minister's complaints about Ottawa, I remind him of the refrain of his leader -- and this is not the question -- I put it --

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Do not get nervous.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: We will get a chance later.

Let me refer the minister to the question he did not answer with regard to the apprenticeships at Conestoga. I have here a letter dated October 2 and addressed to the minister from Delta Enterprises, Sarnia, on behalf of the 83 employers. They say that in late May or early June 1986 Conestoga sent a curriculum to his department for approval. When I last talked to them, about a week ago, they had heard nothing yet. They have been trying to expedite approval of this program, as they anticipated having a class of electric motor repair apprentices in February.

Everything is in place -- the people willing to take the apprentice program, the employers willing to hire them and Conestoga willing to run the course -- but the minister sits on it and does not approve apprenticeship programs. Stop complaining to the federal government; stop complaining here; and stop allowing people to advertise over here. When is the minister going to approve the apprenticeship program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition reminded me of a refrain. Let us remind the people of Ontario about yesterday's refrain, when a simple motion took 45 minutes to determine, while the bells rang, to see whether we could vote on a committee report. Let us talk about that refrain. Let us see who is getting things done and not getting things done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Premier. It concerns information we have just received about the Ontario Hydro pension plan. Can the Premier comment on the fact that the Hydro plan currently has a surplus of $370 million, which is projected to grow to $690 million under some revised accounting practices to be implemented in January, 1987? As the Premier will note, these accounting practices apply to surpluses right across the province and are going to increase the amount of so-called pension surpluses astronomically in the next few months.

Can the Premier comment on the facts that, as a result of this so-called surplus, Hydro will not be making any contributions to the plan for 1986 or for 1987 but its employees will continue to have to contribute their share, and that the plan contains no indexing provisions whatsoever. Ontario Hydro is refusing to give its employees the right to share with it the management of the plan. How does the Premier feel about these facts, particularly in the light of what is happening with respect to Roderick Lewis?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not see a connection between the two, but I understand the member's point. The answer to the member is that I am not in a position to comment, because I do not know the facts he has shared with the House today. I assume they are accurate, but I will certainly attempt to verify them in the next little while, if he would like me to.

Mr. Rae: The Premier may see no connection, but I think the public does. The public sees a raw deal and knows a raw deal when it sees one. They see employee after employee being ripped off by pension plan after pension plan and the government of Ontario buying out somebody with a $220,000 annuity and an increase of his pension indexed for life. That is what they see and they say it stinks. They know it stinks and the Premier knows it stinks, and that is why he is having to renegotiate the deal.

Mr. Speaker: What is the member's supplementary?

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier comment on the fact that as a result of the accounting changes, of which he will be aware, the amount of surplus in Ontario will grow by billions as of January 1987? Instead of applying to withdraw a surplus, company after company simply will not be making contributions to the plan, a kind of withdrawal by the back door.

Can the Premier tell us whether he intends to do anything to ensure that employees can get some control of these funds, that they can be guaranteed some degree of indexing for these funds, some provisions for early retirement and some assurances that there will be control of these plans by workers and not control by employers of surpluses amounting to billions of dollars in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend opposite would be the first one to stand up and criticize the government if Hydro rates went up more than he felt they should. I do not necessarily see some of the connections he wants to draw in this House. In the circumstances, for example, I see more of a connection between the pension fund of Ian Deans and Mr. Lewis than I would with Hydro.

The issues the member addresses in his broad, sweeping question are ones that are being addressed by this government. He addresses the question of employee participation in the administration of the funds, and that is a very legitimate point he makes. It is something that has concerned me in the past, as has some sort of inflation protection.

He has criticized the fact -- and I am not aware of the details -- that Hydro is not making a contribution this year because of a surplus. Obviously, what he is looking at is a situation where the various interests are balanced to protect the integrity of the pension funds and not bankrupt companies that are making these contributions.

I have not directed Ontario Hydro, and I do not believe the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) has, on how much to contribute to the pension fund, and I have no accurate up-to-date information on the integrity of the fund. However, the broad questions the member addressed in his question are being addressed at present by the minister and others in the government. We hope in the near future there will be legislation coming forward on which the member will have a chance to comment.

Mr. Rae: If a topping-up of his pension and a guaranteed indexing for life are good enough for Roderick Lewis, why are they not good enough for every single worker in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not trying to defend the Roderick Lewis situation.

Mr. Rae: It just fell out of the sky.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, why would the member have put the question? I think the appropriate question would be this: if a guaranteed job for life is good enough for Roderick Lewis, why is it not good enough for everybody else in the province? I would love to see that for everyone, but my honourable friend opposite knows the insecurity of any particular path one chooses in life. We do not have the situation that we have guaranteed jobs for life in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The expert on the double standard.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to equal pay. Yesterday we had the government rattling its sword with respect to withdrawing legislation on rent control. We have had the Attorney-General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) doing the same with respect to Bill 105 on equal pay.

15:00

I want to ask the Premier a particular question about hospital workers. He may be aware that an award came down last week from Kevin Burkett, the arbitrator, with respect to 28,000 hospital workers. It specifically did not address the question of equal pay. Housekeeping aides now are earning $2,600 a year less than cleaners. The arbitrator said he would not address the question of equal pay because he had been told that legislative action was coming before January 1987 with respect to hospital workers.

If that is the case -- and that is what the arbitrator believes -- why has the government threatened that if hospital workers are covered by Bill 105 the government will withdraw the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know Mr. Burkett. I do not know who conveyed that information to him. I cannot be responsible for the things that individual arbitrators around this province think. Arbitrators make a lot of decisions on the basis of things they think they know or things they do not know, but do not ask me to justify the decisions they make or may not make.

Mr. Rae: I am not asking the Premier to justify what an arbitrator does; I am asking him to justify the point-blank refusal of his government to include hospital workers, municipal workers and nursing home workers under the only piece of legislation we have seen in this Legislature with respect to equal pay. Why has he cut those people out? Why are they not being included so they do not have to go on their hands and knees to arbitrators or go on their hands and knees in collective bargaining to get the kind of equality they deserve in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Some people like to take their cases to arbitrators and believe in the collective bargaining system. To answer the member's question specifically, the government has a definite plan on how to move ahead with the question of pay equity in the public and private sectors. As the member knows, it is an enormous new change. We believe it has been thought out carefully in terms of the timetabling and the inclusion at various times along the road. He obviously disagrees with that timetable, but I believe he at least has to have respect that the government is addressing these issues. They are complex. Wide consultations are necessary and required, and we are going ahead with that, as we said we were some time ago.

Mr. Rae: If the Premier wants to talk about respect, perhaps after yesterday and his comments on rent control and the comments that have been made on equal pay, he and his party ought to reflect on the respect they should have for the democratic will of this Legislature with respect to legislation that is before it.

If amendments are moved in committee that will extend the legislation to include hospital workers, is it still the position of the government that it will pull Bill 105?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, we are very interested in the deliberations of this House and every piece of legislation that comes before it. We hope members will act in a responsible and constructive way in the discussion of all those matters that come before the House.

My honourable friend opposite, in the last few weeks, has seen examples of groups of legislators who change their minds on various things, who bring in second and third, perhaps even third and fourth, opinions on things. This House works well only if everyone has the same sense of responsibility for the outcome, and sometimes I do not see that in the opposition.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Pope: I want to ask a question about responsibility. I want to address my question to the Premier with respect to the matter of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

We have now seen, as has been revealed publicly lately, the study of Mary Eberts. We have seen the work of Blenus Wright. We have seen the review of John Robinette. We have seen the work of the standing committee on public accounts. We have seen the Blake, Cassels and Graydon report. We have seen the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. We have seen the Aird report, and we are now about to have another Legislative Assembly review of the Aird report. All are accompanied by the Premier's unique interpretation and media hype over his perspective of the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

In the light of this dance of the eight veils the Premier has gone through during the past six months, are there conflict-of-interest guidelines in place and is he accepting his responsibility for their administration and enforcement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes, and I should tell the honourable member opposite that the government is working at the very moment on a new act that I hope will very shortly be brought in front of this Legislature. It will encompass a number of the suggestions of Mr. Aird, put them in statute form and bring in an independent arbiter. That legislation will encompass all members of this House, so we will never have again some of the vagaries that have plagued us in the past.

Mr. Pope: If the weakened 1985 guidelines that this Premier put in place are now enforced, if the Premier is saying he is responsible for the administration and enforcement of those guidelines today, can he tell me why there have been to date no amendments, new filings or disclosures on the basis of the Aird report?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member will check with the Clerk, I think he will find those have been done.

SEVERANCE PAY SETTLEMENT

Mr. McClellan: I have a question about yet another example of this Liberal government's penchant for squandering taxpayers' money in platinum handshakes. I ask the Premier whether he recalls that the salary of the former president of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., Mr. Foley, in 1985 was $200,000 a year, plus something called an annual deferred compensation payment of $37,400 a year, which was referred to as a golden handcuff, and an additional bonus of up to $40,000 per year? If he remembers all these things, can he explain why Mr. Foley was given a platinum handshake that appears to be in the vicinity of $500,000?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the facts are quite accurate in that situation. The member is right that Mr. Foley had a contract with UTDC as the president of that organization, and there was some deferred compensation in that contract; but with respect to the severance, as I understand it, he was given two years' severance when he was let go by the board, or they arranged for a settlement. If the honourable member checks normal commercial practices, he will find that is a normal commercial practice. I understand the board of UTDC had legal advice. They talked to McCarthy and McCarthy, and that was the settlement. That is common in the private sector.

Mr. McClellan: It is all very well to pretend that we are talking about a private sector settlement. The Premier knows full well that Mr. Foley is a civil servant. He is recorded in the public accounts at the management level of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications as far back as 1970. Is it not a fact that as a long-term public servant at the management level Mr. Foley had accrued generous pension benefits and that he was no more entitled to a $500,000 settlement than Mr. Lewis was entitled to a $2-million settlement?

I want to ask again, what is this weird penchant the Liberals have for squandering taxpayers' money to get rid of civil servants they do not seem to want around any more while at the same time refusing to give ordinary pensioners a fair deal in inflation protection?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure my honourable friend, for whom I have great respect and who is usually extremely accurate in his facts, wants to be accurate in these circumstances.

Mr. McClellan: If I am wrong, table the facts.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will be very happy to share them with the honourable member now. I believe Mr. Foley was the president of UTDC for about 13 years. I do not believe UTDC is constituted as a public service. Public servants do not make $200,000, or whatever the member quoted him as making. He was the president of that corporation. It was owned by the taxpayers and run as a private sector company responsible to an independent board. It was not $500,000. The member's facts are wrong. It was two years' salary, which, as I recall the facts, was $320,000. That was a decision made by the board. I will share all those facts with the honourable member. Those are the facts as I recall them.

15:10

LOTTERY WINNINGS

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, a very lucky couple in my riding won something in excess of $11 million in a recent Lotto 6/49. I want to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. There was discussion some time ago about the question of capping the awards. What steps have been taken towards capping those awards?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: From time to time, many people have expressed their opinion to me that $10 million, $11 million or $12 million is too much for one person to win. They have suggested, and it is my own view, that this amount should be capped below the $10-million mark and that the balance of the prize money should be allotted to more people. Ontario has made this recommendation to the Interprovincial Lottery Corp.; however, we are only one player, and the other provinces have not agreed.

Mr. Callahan: In the light of that fact, I want to inquire whether any follow-ups are made by the ministry to look into how those winners have been able to deal with the question of their winnings.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Any follow-up by the Ontario Lottery Corp. has shown that the funding most of the winners receive has been handled very responsibly. The lottery corporation, at its interprovincial meetings, is still discussing with its other provincial colleagues the question of capping that total amount.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. pork-barrel portfolio he is now in charge of. I want to ask about a couple of the companies with close ties to the Liberal Party that received investments from IDEA.

First, in regard to Wyda Systems, I am sure the minister will be aware that the inquiry of the standing committee on public accounts found that the bulk of the $3 million invested by IDEA in Wyda did not go to developing new technology, as is required by IDEA, but rather went to the retirement of long-term debt and was not used as was anticipated by the board of directors of the IDEA Corp.

In view of this fact, what steps has the minister taken or will he take to recover for the taxpayers of Ontario that $3-million investment?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Concerning the member's question, since June 30, 1986, all things connected with IDEA Corp. have been looked after by the Ontario Development Corp. Many corrections are being made in the way things were previously handled. We are not very happy with the results the committee received and where that money was spent, and this will be one of the things that Jack Biddell will be looking into in his inquiry.

Mr. Gillies: The minister will know he is responsible for the operation of the Ontario Development Corp. Is the message he is putting out that any company that walks in with a Liberal lobbyist can get millions of dollars, no strings attached?

I want to ask the minister about the $5 million that is going down the drain with Graham Software. Is the minister aware of this quote? One month ago, Terry Graham, the president of Graham Software, said to a periodical in this city: "My company's predicament began when Ontario's Liberal government closed the doors on the IDEA Corp. We did not know how our investment was going to be treated and we still do not know how it is going to be treated."

The negligence on the part of the minister and his officials is appalling. Will the minister take steps to recover as much of that $5 million as possible? We do not need a whitewash inquiry. The taxpayers deserve a portion of that money back because of the minister's negligence.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member actually had three questions there, but I would like to deal with the last one. I can assure him we will do whatever we can to recover any of the $5 million that is left. His government set up the IDEA Corp. and its directors. It was his government's directions they were following. Is the member saying there should have been political interference from me as a minister?

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Premier regarding Falconbridge and its recent announcement of the elimination of a further 275 jobs. Falconbridge was able to find $41 million last year to invest in Norway to refine nickel from Botswana, and Falconbridge was able to find $600 million last year to buy Kidd Creek and then immediately laid off workers. With this recent announcement and with the fact that Falconbridge has never lost money in the Sudbury area, will the Premier now establish a committee with the powers necessary to review Falconbridge's announced layoffs and to get the financial statements of the company and its future plans so we can put an end to this practice and so these layoffs and future layoffs that might be forthcoming do not occur?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The questions the honourable member is raising are disturbing to me and to the government. We are watching this very closely. As he knows, there has been a collapse in the price of nickel in the past 18 months. A number of operations are threatened and are being down-sized in the province. The points he makes are good points. I hope to have a meeting with Mr. James of Falconbridge in the near future to discuss some of these very questions. I appreciate the constructive suggestion the member has made. I am not in a position to adopt it today, but on the other hand I am not ruling it out.

Mr. Martel: Since the Premier is going to meet with Jesse James, is he aware that Falconbridge last year worked excess hours beyond the permit levels under the Employment Standards Act? Is he aware that Falconbridge is discontinuing any mining development in the Sudbury basin, which is the death knell for Sudbury? Based on the two last facts alone, does the Premier not think it is appropriate to establish a committee to look into it? We cannot have resource-based companies, the largest employers in the north, playing these types of games. It is going on right across northern Ontario. That is why we have 14 per cent unemployment.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the points the member is raising. I am concerned about the long-term plans of Falconbridge, particularly in the Sudbury basin area, as I am of other mining companies there. It is something I will be looking into personally. I will report back to the member any information I glean. Then I will solicit his advice and the advice of others on other initiatives that should perhaps be taken. I am not in a position to tell him today what those could be. It is worrisome, and the long-term viability of Sudbury is of course directly affected thereby. I am sure the member and I will have an opportunity to discuss this on many more occasions. It is a worrisome matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. If he thinks he is going to avoid a forensic audit that was unanimously approved by the standing committee on public accounts by the Biddell report, he should guess again; it is not going to happen.

My question is for the minister in charge of industrial development in this province. I specifically refer him to the unemployment situation in northern Ontario. The government's own figures show an unemployment rate in northern Ontario now standing at 11.3 per cent. We have unemployment rates of 12.8 per cent in North Bay, 12.8 per cent in Thunder Bay, 15.5 per cent in Sault Ste. Marie and 10.8 per cent in Sudbury. We have had specific layoffs in many single-industry communities across northern Ontario over the past six months when he has been responsible for the development of the industrial capacity of Ontario. What new programs has the minister put in place to help these laid-off resource workers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As has been stated on previous occasions, we are also very concerned about the unemployment problem in the north. I do not think the member would find that any government has moved as quickly as this government to try to correct some of these problems. I might reiterate some of them.

There were the announcements by the Premier of several ministries or parts of ministries that have been moved to the north. There are the visits our ministry staff have made to the north; the appointment of an assistant deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for the north; a new conference we are holding on the north, coming up in the first part of November; the new ventures program; some of the tourism programs, and many of the grants or loans that have been made out of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., which are expected to create thousands of jobs in the north.

15:20

Mr. Pope: Not one laid-off resource worker will be helped by any of the nonsense the minister just recited in the House. It is all the Premier's optics with no substance at all and no help for the single-industry communities in northern Ontario. The minister has the nerve to stand up and try to claim he has done something.

Mr. Speaker: Now the supplementary is?

Mr. Pope: While we are talking about the resource workers in northern Ontario, what has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology done to protect the workers in the sawmill industries of northern Ontario who are facing layoffs because of the countervailing duty case in the United States? What has he specifically done vis-à-vis the United States and the international trade talks?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third time you have asked the same question.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As my parliamentary assistant just asked, "What were you doing for 42 years that we got into this predicament?"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I reiterate that I do not believe any previous government has ever moved as quickly to try to do something for job creation in the north as the Premier of this government.

APPOINTMENT OF REEVE

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier was in the assembly yesterday afternoon when I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to put on hold the decision to appoint a reeve in Chapleau rather than to have him appointed by the minister. The minister refused either to put the decision on hold until a delegation had come down to talk to him or to rescind the decision.

In view of the importance of this matter and in view of the fact that the new reeve, who was appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is to be sworn in tonight in Chapleau, would the Premier ask or tell the minister to do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I missed the request. Is he asking me to tell the minister to do something or to order him to do something?

The honourable member knows me. I do not tell or order anybody to do anything; I take advice and try to develop a consensus. I will pass on the member's heartfelt remarks to the minister for his reconsideration.

Mr. Laughren: I do not know when I have seen such a patronizing and insulting attitude towards a small northern community as is being demonstrated by the minister and the Premier by appointing a reeve. Would the Premier tolerate for one moment his minister appointing a new mayor of London, Ontario, against the wishes of the community if the present mayor moved away?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member talking about the present mayor of London or the last mayor of London?

I appreciate the point the member is making. As the member knows, I was not aware of the situation. I heard the honourable minister respond yesterday that he has to consider this in the context of public policy right across the province and that it is very difficult to deal with on an individual basis.

Given the intensity of the member's feeling he has raised it two days in a row and he raised it in the statement period of yesterday -- and the strong advice that he has, I am sure the minister, being the thoughtful, sensitive person that he is, tries to take other people's advice into consideration and then makes his own judgement.

He will hear what I am saying, he will hear what the member is saying and I am sure he will reflect on that. If he feels he should change his mind on the basis of the member's entreaties, I am sure he will do that.

NOMINATION DU PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE

M. Shymko: J'adresse ma question au premier ministre. Le 6 septembre, dans une interview parue dans le quotidien Le Droit, le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) a exigé qu'on remplace notre Président de l'Assemblée parce qu'il n'était pas bilingue et il a dit que le premier ministre était très ouvert à cela. Je cite ses mots: "Le premier ministre David Peterson serait sans doute `très ouvert à cela", à cette proposition.

Je voudrais savoir si le premier ministre et son gouvernement partagent cette expression, rendue publique par un membre du Cabinet, de manque de confiance en notre Président. Est-il vraiment ouvert à cette suggestion et quelle est vraiment sa position en ce moment?

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je veux dire au député de High Park-Swansea que je n'ai pas compris exactement sa question. Sur quelle question veut-il comprendre ma position? Quel est son problème?

Mr. Shymko: It is not my problem. When a minister demands the replacement of the Speaker and publicly asks that he be replaced because he is not bilingual, I want to ask the Premier whether that is his position. Is he going to give the Speaker the same package retirement deal as was given to the Clerk, or is he open now to the Ottawa precedent of electing a new Speaker? He is the one who should answer that; not me.

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je pense que tous les députés ici doivent être bilingues, comme le sont le député de High Park-Swansea lui-même et quelques-uns des autres. C'est une bonne chose, pas seulement pour le greffier mais également pour le Président et pour tout le monde. J'espère qu'à l'avenir, tous les députés seront capables de discuter de tous les sujets en français. Ce n'est pas une position extrême, à mon avis, parce que comme nous le savons, le ministre a des opinions précises sur les questions qui concernent les francophones en Ontario. C'est une position que beaucoup d'autres ministres partagent avec lui. Ce n'est pas une question grave.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I have here the Insurance Bureau of Canada $12,000-advertisement from this morning's Globe and Mail headed, "It only takes a minute to see why auto insurance rates keep going up." It contains pictures of nine accidents that have taken place across Canada. In very small print at the bottom it says, "The accidents depicted did not occur at the time or place shown."

Does the minister not agree that such a self-serving ad as this is an inappropriate use of hard-pressed motorists' premiums and does he not agree that this use of phoney photos is a degree of deception like the claims/premium ratio the insurance bureaus put out and the minister repeats in this House?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The advertising that is done by the insurance industry has nothing to do with me at all. They are free to do as they wish. How can the member say it is deceptive advertising when they have a disclaimer in that ad telling us exactly what these pictures are?

Mr. Swart: It is in small print. I do not think they need the ad at all; they could not get a better spokesman than the minister for the insurance companies of this province.

This ad shows accidents in Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which are forcing up the rates, but it does not mention Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. Does the minister not realize they did not dare show them in those western provinces that have public plans, because rates have not increased in those provinces for two years? Why does he continue stubbornly to refuse to investigate and publicize the rates and the fairness of those plans in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC, which, if applied here, could save Ontario motorists between one half and three quarters of a billion dollars annually? Why does he not get out of the insurance companies' pockets and do something for the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have always tried to be accommodating to the member for Welland-Thorold; so I am going to give him that information right now. I wish he would take out his pencil so that he can get these figures straight.

Mr. Swart: I can get it myself from the insurance company where the minister got it.

15:30

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This is the cost of insurance for a married male, aged 30, who drives to and from work and has no accident record and no traffic violations. Coverage is $1 million public liability and property damage, $100 deductible collision, $50 deductible comprehensive for a 1985 Celebrity sedan. In Vancouver, the insurance would be $618; in Kamloops, BC, $524; in Regina, Saskatchewan, $500, and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, $493. In Ontario, the figures are: London, $452; Kitchener, $462; Ottawa, $461, and Toronto, $555.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. McFadden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing the House to order.

I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister is reported as having made some rather bizarre remarks at a recent meeting of university presidents dealing with the state of university financing. He is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "The fact is, were we to ignore post-secondary education, we might get that majority anyway." Does this remark explain why the government has failed to provide an adequate increase in operating grants to the university system?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that. Before I do, let us compare the misinformation of this member with that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who asked me a question a while ago about a program on apprenticeship at Conestoga College. Conestoga College has been asking for that program since 1981. We received the letter he referred to on October 10, and on October 14, yesterday, we approved the program.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I asked the minister a question. He did not respond to my question; he responded to an earlier question. If he is proposing to stand up to respond to an earlier question, he should have done that in his place.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate your help. I will ask the minister to respond to the question.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am sorry to divert like that. I really do apologize, but the point had to be made.

The member for Eglinton quoted a statement that was made in this context, "What about your priorities with respect to post-secondary education?" I said our priorities are not based on crass political games. We really do have a firm, unbending commitment towards redressing the damage that has been done to our university system over a 10-year period. The record shows we have taken some very substantial steps and that there is a lot more to do. That will not get us a majority and it will not determine the outcome of the next election. There are other issues that will speak to that forum.

My comment was and is today that we are making those commitments because we really do believe them.

Mr. McFadden: The record in the Star speaks for itself.

Is the minister in his reply stating that an increase in operating grants of less than four per cent is adequate for the university system in Ontario? Is that what we are to understand from his reply?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Since 1985, we have taken more steps to redress problems we inherited than were taken in the previous 10 years. Look at the community college system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The point is that there is much to be done. We started a building program. We started rebuilding campuses -- four new buildings -- for the first time in several years. We turned around the system in community colleges, which was a disaster a year and a half ago. Conestoga got its program. Is there more to be done? The simple answer is yes.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We do not have a lot of day care in Ontario. We do not have accessible, affordable day care. The minister has given a deadline of the end of this year to remove indirect subsidies from day care centres where fee-paying parents are able, because of indirect subsidies, to keep the cost per child down to about $4,000 a year.

Will the minister tell us what mechanisms he has put in place to allow day care centres and families to continue in operation with child care services provided at municipal day care centres within the next 12 weeks?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The prohibition against indirect subsidies for municipally operated day care centres comes from the federal government; it does not come from the province. They have indicated very clearly that they are not prepared to share funding for that particular purpose. As a matter of fact, they indicated that three years ago, and all of the municipalities that were permitting that to take place were told three years ago.

When this government took office, that was one of the problems brought to my attention. At that time, the decision had already been made to cut that off as of December 1985. I extended it for one more year, a full 12 months. All the municipalities were advised of what the situation was. We have indicated to them that we are quite prepared to work with them on an individual basis, as I presume the previous government offered. I do not know, but I presume that. We also indicated to them that a number of them have the option of increasing the income level at which they could provide subsidies, which we would support and which many of them refused to do. We have made those offers.

The other point I would like to make is that in those areas where there are indirect subsidies, there is no discrimination whatsoever as to what the income level is. In other words, a family with an income of $20,000 would get the same kind of subsidy as the family with an income of $50,000. The subsidy program which is offered --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gigantes: That response was very disordered, Mr. Speaker; you are quite right.

The minister knows that in Thunder Bay, for example, the cost for a family can go from $17.50 a day to $28 a day, or about $3,000 a year, for the care of one child. What mechanisms has he put in place to ensure that those Thunder Bay facilities are going to be in operation and that the families who get care now at those centres are going to be able to continue getting care in 12 weeks?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Thunder Bay, like every other municipality -- including one that happens to be in my own area -- has had three years to put a procedure into place. We have indicated to them that they could re-examine the kinds of cost structure they are facing. We are quite prepared to sit down with them on an individual basis and work out a solution to their problems. We have told them that, but we are not going to continue the indirect subsidies.

PETITIONS

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition addressed to the Premier and the Treasurer of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"I agree that if the proposed changes to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act are carried out, there could be a serious depletion of financial resources to community, recreation, sports, fitness and cultural groups and agencies, as well as a depletion of the quality, quantity and variety of opportunities people have come to enjoy and expect, that section 9 of Bill 38 continue to designate the share of lottery revenues to recreation, sports, fitness and culture and that the government of Ontario should form a standing committee to hear the concerns of the municipalities, agencies and organizations regarding this important issue."

The petition is signed by 40 people.

15:40

NATUROPATHY

Mr. McKessock: I have a petition signed by 146 residents of the Palmerston-Harriston area, which reads as follows:

"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. J. M. Johnson: I have a similar petition.

"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;

This petition is signed by 72 people who visit the office of Dr. Fred Wilson and Dr. Daphne Rappard, 410 St. Andrew Street West, Fergus, in my riding, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition that reads:

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

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

"Provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code currently allow insurance companies to discriminate with respect to rate structure on the basis of gender. This practice is highly detrimental to young male drivers and does not conform to the spirit of the Human Rights Code. It also appears to violate the equality provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we would respectfully petition the government of Ontario to delete the provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code in the interests of equality and justice."

This petition is signed by 20 students from the grade 13 law class of Lord Elgin High School, who are in attendance in the chamber today.

CHAMPS D'ÉPURATION

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition signed by 52 interested people in the area of Crysler, Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

Nous, les soussignés, désirons aviser les membres de l'Assemblée législative de la province de l'Ontario de notre opposition à leur choix éventuel du lot 17, concession 10, Canton de Finch, pour fin de champs d'épuration pour le village de Crysler.

JAMES AULD PROVINCIAL WATERWAY PARK

Mr. Runciman: I wish to table a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Minister of Natural Resources. There are more than 100 names of individuals indicating their opposition to the proposed James Auld Provincial Waterway Park.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. McNeil from the standing committee on the Ombudsman reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $5,261, 700.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Runciman from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's first report on the allegation of conflict of interest concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP, and moved the adoption of the recommendations contained in the report.

Mr. Runciman: The report I am now presenting to the House was tabled with the Clerk of the Legislature on Thursday, September 18, 1986. It represents a long summer of dedicated work on the part of all members of the standing committee on public accounts. It is never at the best of times an easy responsibility to sit in judgement on such matters when they relate to a fellow member of the Legislature. I believe our hearings and conclusions show the care and thoughtful reflection members brought to their task.

I would like to thank the following committee staff for their able assistance during the proceedings: John Bell, the legal counsel; Martin Peters, the assistant legal counsel; Douglas Arnott, the clerk of the committee, and Helen Burstyn Fritz, the research officer.

In accordance with the request of the committee, and pursuant to standing order 32(d), I request that the government table a comprehensive response to the recommendations contained in our report.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Runciman moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Harris: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Runciman from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's second report on the allegation of conflict of interest concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP, and moved its adoption:

Mr. Runciman: The committee's second report with respect to the alleged conflict of interest concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP, was tabled on Friday, October 3, 1986. It is an attempt to provide an explicit statement of findings and conclusions based on evidence received and summarized in our first report.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Runciman moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Epp: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Keyes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, that the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology be transferred from the standing committee on resources development to the standing committee on general government, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to be considered first.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Keyes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, that, in the committee of supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Housing be considered following the estimates of the Lieutenant Governor, Premier and Cabinet Office; and that the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be transferred from the committee of supply to the standing committee on general government, to be considered following the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Keyes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, that the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue and the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet be transferred from the committee of supply to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue to be considered first.

Motion agreed to.

15:50

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Keyes moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, that substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Mr. Callahan for Mr. Offer, Mr. D. R. Cooke for Mr. D. W. Smith, Mr. Rowe for Mr. Villeneuve;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr. Cordiano for Mr. Henderson, Ms. Hart for Mr. Ward, Mr. Taylor for Mr. Barlow;

Standing committee on general government: Mr. Fontaine for Ms. Hart, Mrs. Grier for Mr. Allen, Mr. Lane for Mr. Cousens, Mr. McKessock for Mr. McGuigan, Mr. Sargent for Mr. Reycraft, Mr. Sterling for Mr. Dean, Mr. Swart for Ms. Bryden;

Standing committee on government agencies: Mr. Ferraro for Mr. Poirier, Mr. Grande for Mr. Swart, Mr. J. M. Johnson for Mr. Lane, Mr. Mitchell for Mr. Rowe, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. McKessock, Mr. Sargent for Mr. South;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr. Dean for Mr. J. M. Johnson, Mr. Villeneuve for Mr. Sterling, Mr. Warner for Mr. Laughren;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr. Henderson for Mr. Mancini;

Standing committee on public accounts: Mr. Barlow for Mr. Gregory, Mr. Davis for Mr. Harris, Mr. Mancini for Mr. G. I. Miller, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. Ferraro;

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Ms. Bryden for Mr. Charlton, Mr. Fontaine for Mr. Cordiano, Mr. Poirier for Mr. Ferraro, Mr. Pouliot for Mr. Morin-Strom;

Standing committee on resources development: Ms. Caplan for Mr. Mancini, Mr. Gordon for Mr. Taylor, Mr. McGuigan for Mr. McKessock, Mr. Morin-Strom for Mr. Ramsay, Mr. South for Mr. Poirier, Mr. Cordiano for Mr. McGuigan for Bill 51, Mr. Epp for Mr. Knight for Bill 51, Ms. E. J. Smith for Mr. South for Bill 51;

Standing committee on social development: Mr. Cousens for Mr. Davis, Mr. Grande for Mr. Reville.

Motion agreed to.

REFERRAL OF REPORT

Hon. Mr. Keyes moved that the Aird report on ministerial compliance with conflict-of-interest guidelines and recommendations with respect to those guidelines be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for review and report.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Shymko moved first reading of Bill 133, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: In the light of the very important report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario, this bill has great significance in that it will amend the Liquor Control Act to request that all chemical ingredients contained in spirits, wines and beer be listed on the labels of these products by the manufacturers.

CITY OF WINDSOR (WINDSOR-DETROIT TUNNEL) ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel.

Motion agreed to.

ITALO-CANADIAN CENTENNIAL CLUB ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive Italo-Canadian Centennial Club.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I believe it is for the third time now that I have brought to your attention that in December 1985 I tabled question 141. An interim answer was tabled on December 20. Further information noted that I would receive the answer by February 28, 1986. It has now been eight months and I have still not received an answer to the question. I plead with you to use your good offices to lean on that incompetent bunch over there at least to give me some response. They do not answer letters and they do not answer questions. My privileges are being abused.

Mr. Speaker: That was a very interesting speech. It sounds very similar to the point raised a little earlier today. I hope the acting government House leader will take that to the appropriate minister.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, moved second reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Mr. Epp: This bill, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act, contains proposals designed to remove some of the red tape in the administration of the program by reducing program funding from three separate-purpose funds to only two funds, being the northern and eastern Ontario incentive fund and the general fund. In making this change, new enterprise funding and the general fund will be merged and the election requirements with respect to investments by ordinary small business development corporations in new enterprises will be removed.

The bill contains administrative amendments designed to provide for greater clarity in the provisions resulting from the October 1985 budget and required as a consequence of the enactment of the Business Corporations Act, 1982, and the Family Law Act, 1986. For example, a new definition of "spouse" is provided to conform to the revised definition contained in the Family Law Act, 1986.

In addition, the bill includes certain provisions outlining the minister's right to withhold release from the SBDC trust accounts where the SBDC is in breach of the act or the corporation is conducting its business in a manner contrary to the spirit and intent of the act or for the purpose of obtaining a grant or tax credit to which it would not otherwise be entitled.

16:00

The budget proposed an extension of the outflow activities qualifying for a small business development corporation investment to the service sector. This expansion to the program will be implemented through amendments to the regulations to the act, as opposed to the act itself.

In summary, all amendments contained in the bill will be effective the day following royal assent to the enabling legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? There being none, the member for Cambridge.

Mr. Barlow: Thank you. Our party will generally be supporting this legislation. After all, we did some very effective programming. It was introduced by the previous government, has been extremely successful in helping small businesses establish in this province and will be expanded with this additional funding that will become available through the SBDC program.

I do not have a date on it, but about three years ago, I believe, the previous government requested a report from Clarkson Gordon to bring forward some recommendations on the success of the SBDC program. In the executive summary, the findings and conclusions of the evaluation of the small business development corporations program state: "The small business development corporations program is successfully meeting its objectives of supporting small businesses in Ontario through the encouragement of new equity investment by the private sector. The program is well received by participants, is lauded by major small business organizations, and the efficient administration by the Ministry of Revenue contributes to its success."

The report goes on to say on the third page of the executive summary, "Given the success of the SBDC program and small business's need for equity investment, we recommend that the Ontario small business development corporation program be continued."

It also made several recommendations about expanding the program in some areas. We are pleased the government has recognized some of the recommendations that had been brought forward. We support the gist of these recommendations.

The expansion of the program into the service sector, including such areas as computer services, architectural engineering and other scientific services and services ancillary to manufacturing, such as electroplaters, foundries and milling operators, is a good direction.

Other areas could probably be looked at. I have often wondered about a sector such as the construction field. There is no form of government assistance for the contractors to buy some of the pretty expensive equipment they are involved in purchasing. This is an area that could be considered at some point. I am thinking of bulldozers, cranes and many of these very expensive pieces of equipment. Manufacturers have the Ontario Development Corp. to go to, and the Federal Business Development Bank is assisting manufacturers and also now this expanded area. However, the construction sector is still left without any means of government assistance when it comes to expanding some of its programs and businesses.

In the past, I expressed concern about the decrease in the incentives for central and southwestern Ontario, down to the 25 per cent level from the previous amount of 30 per cent. When it was at 30 per cent, it made that many more dollars available to all the residents of Ontario. I have no quarrel with recognizing the need and the unemployment situation in northern Ontario. I do not quarrel with that at all. It is significant and should be recognized, but not by taking away from the balance of the province, central and southwestern Ontario, when in some areas of western Ontario there is still a problem recovering from the recession.

I am thinking of areas such as Sarnia and down through there. My colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) would be speaking on this, but he was unable to attend today. I want to put in a plug for him, so we can consider why there had to be that decrease for the balance of Ontario. Perhaps the member can address that. I realize this is not the time to be taking advantage of that, but it is a time when it has to be considered. Perhaps the member can take it into consideration.

I have problems understanding the gist of the whole program or some areas of the program. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) might be aware of my Orders and Notices question. I cannot claim, like the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), the record of eight months for failure to answer a question, but four months ago, on June 10, I had an Orders and Notices question to the ministry asking the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) to provide the exact amount of budgeted money used by the small business development corporation program during the period from October 24, 1985, to May 13, 1986, specifically by regions.

What I was after at that time and what I still want to hear about is how much money was in the program for the various regions and how much of that money was used. I do not think that should be very difficult to dig up. I realize the Minister of Revenue has other responsibilities as Treasurer, and now he has a couple of other responsibilities added to that, but I do not think he is the fellow who has to go to the books and find out. He has staff who can assist him.

Perhaps the member can ask the Minister of Revenue on his return whether he can speed up an answer to that question. It would help me and others to understand how much of this program money has been used. The dates I chose were specifically between the two budgets. That could be expanded, and I would be glad to receive the information. If it were even on a fiscal-year basis, say, for the past three years, it would give some further assistance, but that was not part of my Orders and Notices question.

I noticed a recent press report in which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) suggested that a further extension that could very well be considered is into the cultural industry for film makers, which is a fledgling industry that requires some assistance. My concern, however, is whether this is going in the same direction as the one for which SBDCs were instigated or into something entirely different from the area of manufacturing and into another service sector. Perhaps the member can comment on whether that is a plan for the future of this program, to move into other areas away from those that have traditionally been accepted as the criteria for the program.

16:10

About the only other point I would like to bring forward, and perhaps receive some comment on, is the total amount of dollars involved in the program. It was in the previous fiscal year, and is again in this fiscal year, $30 million. I realize where some of the money is coming from. Some of it is coming from, as I pointed out before, the lower grants allocated to central and southwestern Ontario, or the balance of Ontario other than the east and north. Is it fair to take that away from this part of industrial Ontario and not increase the budgeted amount? For the 1985-86 fiscal year, it was $30 million and for the 1986-87 fiscal year it is again only $30 million.

Perhaps I could understand the answer to that question a bit if I had an answer to my question in Orders and Notices. Unfortunately, I do not. Perhaps that will come; perhaps the member has that in his back pocket and can read it off to me a little later when he has a chance to reply.

That is the extent of my remarks on this very successful program. We will certainly be supporting it but we have reservations on some of the recommendations that have been made.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to indicate our support for the legislation. I was going through both the previous budget from the fall of 1985 and this budget. Certainly, there has been some emphasis by the present government on small business. It is an area in which they feel comfortable and in which they are trying to steal from the traditional territory of the former Liberal government, which went under the name of the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario for 42 years.

There are a couple of points I want briefly to make on this second reading. We should make the point that it will be necessary to have this bill in clause-by-clause debate. As I was preparing for these budget bills during the past several weeks, if not months, since the budget was announced, it occurred to me to ask for a compendium of information on budget bills. Interestingly, I was told these were not forthcoming and that the budget itself was considered the compendium, which seemed to me to be a reasonable answer until I did actually receive just yesterday a compendium for the amendments to the Assessment Act. I found the detailed notes in that compendium quite enlightening in terms of being able to discuss the legislation intelligently.

I appreciate receiving the compendium on that bill, but I think it would be a good thing for the officials of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Revenue to prepare a compendium on budget bills, not merely for the Treasurer but for all members of the Legislature, so that they could be discussed intelligently. Some of the information we have in the budget itself, including the appendices that describe the measures taken on the individual bills, are themselves suitably vague; that is, you will see from time to time reference in those appendices to see the actual legislation for further detail.

When one is trying to comb through the original bill, the amendments that have been passed just a year ago and the amendments currently before us, one does need to be both a taxation expert and a lawyer to be able read that intelligently and with assurance that one may actually understand what the bill is doing.

I suspect one of the reasons we do not get compendiums on individual tax bills is that perhaps the officials do not know what they are doing. I entertained that for a while and I rejected that. They know what they are doing, but they do not want the minister and the rest of us to know what they are doing, or if they do know what they are doing, it is so complicated it is difficult to explain. Every tax measure should be simple and direct enough that one can explain it.

I would make a plea, frankly, that the budget is not good enough as a compendium for tax bills and that in this Legislature in the future we have ministry officials develop a compendium on individual tax bills ahead of time, partly so the newly founded standing committee on finance and economic affairs can take its responsibility seriously and discuss in a prebudget period, as I am given to understand the Treasurer wants us to discuss, some measures with a certain amount of background and intelligence.

Members will know that so far I have been speaking directly on the principle of this bill. There is actually a second point I want to make. It is somewhat difficult to speak on the principle of most of the tax bills we will be seeing this afternoon because they do a hotchpotch of things in relation to a number of already existing factors.

Therefore, let me start point number three. We in this party support the encouragement of small business. The Small Business Development Corporations Act and its amendments appear to take some steps in that direction. The question I would like the parliamentary assistant to address is: Why is it actually necessary to spell out in the legislation those activities that qualify for small business development corporation grants and incentives?

Why was it necessary last year to add to the list of certain business activities -- computer services was added this year -- a number of services which were ancillary to the mining and forestry industries, such as transportation, contract drilling, machinery equipment leasing, and so on. Why this year is it necessary to add computer services, architectural engineering and other professional scientific and related technical services, etc.?

In other words, would it not be simpler to define the kind of corporation in terms of its size rather than in terms of sectoral activity? It would seem to me that what one is doing is prohibiting entrepreneurial spirit, by actually having a list of activities that are specifically designated eligible for these grants.

I find it kind of ironic that it is a socialist who has to make the argument for entrepreneurial spirit, but they are denying --

Mr. Runciman: Are you a socialist, Jim?

Mr. Foulds: I am certainly a socialist. The member may find the term contradictory but I am a true-blue socialist, a red-blooded socialist, if one likes.

Why is it necessary to designate the actual activity? Why is the government not able simply to define in legislation a small business corporation, which would then be eligible, whether it is in film making, basket weaving, some creative activities in the arts, such as genuine tapestry weaving, or in the new computer services software and so on? As we get into this century and provide more services and more business activity connected with culture and the arts, we are going to have to keep adding things that should be legitimately in the legislation. I raise that in terms of the principle of the bill.

16:20

The next principle is one that is in this legislation. While there is discrimination in favour of the north and east in terms of the amount available -- the north and the east are eligible for a 30 per cent amount -- the rest of the province is eligible for only 25 per cent. That is achieved by an actual reduction in the amount available to the rest of the province. Thirty per cent used to be available across the province, but the government has displayed negative discrimination; it has maintained that level at 30 per cent for the northern and eastern funds but reduced it to 25 per cent for the rest of the province. That seems to me to be going backwards.

The government has said to small business corporations in the province as a whole, "We will give you incentives, etc., up to only 25 per cent." That seems to be a backward step. It may be necessary to do that in terms of the funds available because the government has also limited the amount of funds at $30 million, as it was in the previous year, and therefore it might be able to give more grants and incentives to more companies with the amount available; but it is, if I may say so, a bit of sleight of hand. The government may be increasing the number of grants and incentives to small businesses -- that is, the number of small businesses affected may be greater -- but it is not increasing its help to small businesses, because the total amount still has that $30-million ceiling.

Those are some of the questions I have on the principle of the bill. As I said, we will be supporting it. There may be other specific questions when we get to clause-by-clause consideration, which I assume will not be today because I gather we want to get through all the budget bills on second reading first. It gives the members of the Legislature and anybody who is astute and committed enough to read these debates some idea that the explanatory notes alone are longer than the bill itself and that these notes are about as complex as the amendments themselves. That is one of the reasons budget bills almost inevitably are required to go into committee, whether we like it or not.

Mr. Gregory: It is a pleasure for me to have a chance to offer one or two comments. I must admit I cannot be too critical, because this plan is one that I had the pleasure of administrating for a number of years. Of course, the small business development corporations plan was instituted some years ago by a previous Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), and since that time it has been an increasing success story. It has been copied extensively by other provinces and other areas of North America. I believe some provinces have copied it almost word for word. It has been a success story over the years.

As our critic the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) has said, we will be supporting this bill, but I am prompted to raise a couple of points. There is an old saying that I think comes from the Ottawa Valley: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The plan was not broken; it was working very successfully. Were it not for the breakdown in funding between northern and eastern Ontario and southern and central Ontario or southern and western Ontario -- whatever -- all the money would invariably have been spent every year, as indeed it was before that breakdown.

I agree -- I am very quick to agree -- that special attention should be paid to northern Ontario. Perhaps a good share of the funding should go to northern and eastern Ontario to promote growth of industry or whatever. In 1984, our government made recommendations to improve the program to include services and transportation. It is nice to see that the present government is going part way with the inclusion of services.

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) touched on one of the things that bother me about this. It sounds like smoke and mirrors. It tries to appear as if more money is being granted to the program, but in fact this is not so. Under this bill, through a reduction of the bonus from 30 per cent to 25 per cent in southern, central and western Ontario, the government has penalized investors where the program has been so successful, while making it appear that it is giving extra to northern and eastern Ontario to reward them and to encourage them to promote business.

If this were so, I would be totally in favour of it. The fact of the matter is that we are leaving northern and eastern Ontario exactly the same in terms of the 30 per cent bonus to investors in small business development corporations in northern and eastern Ontario and we are penalizing future investors in southern and western Ontario by five per cent.

When we break down the amount of money budgeted -- I believe it was some $30 million in the past -- into the spread between what was designated for northern and eastern Ontario and what was designated for central and southern Ontario, 100 per cent of the funds was used up in southern Ontario and about 75 per cent of the funds, or perhaps even less, was used up in northern and eastern Ontario.

It is safe enough and perhaps good politically to leave the 30 per cent bonus in force in northern Ontario where all the budget funds are not being used, but to reduce that where they are being used creates a few more opportunities of a lesser quality for people and appears to create a lot more opportunities for many more SBDCs to come into force. It would have been far simpler if the government had taken the opportunity at least to attempt to keep pace with the growth in the economy. If somebody had not taken my notes, I would have been able to quote figures, but they seem to have disappeared; there they are.

If the government had taken the position that it should try to keep pace with the increase in overall government expenditures, for example, which is 7.8 per cent, if it had even attempted to do that, it would have been doing something by increasing the amount of budget allocated for this. If it had increased the budget for the SBDC program in the same fashion it increased the budget for the Office of the Premier, which was more than 300 per cent, we would have had a tremendously successful program. Even the parliamentary assistant is smiling about that one; he probably realizes the truth of my words. Lord knows, even the budget for the Premier's office would have added quite a few more SBDCs in Ontario.

When the government finds a winning program such as this, something that is tremendously successful, instead of tinkering with it, why does it not do something constructive by saying, "This is the way we are going to promote small business without any partisanship at all"? All of us in this House have to admit the tremendous success of this program. It was outlined by the member for Cambridge, who stated that even the Office of the Provincial Auditor, in reviewing the program, found it was a tremendous success.

16:30

Mr. Callahan: Maybe the government should not have put in research money for the opposition. That would have been a good way to save too.

Mr. Gregory: I am glad the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) is here. I was probably going to run short of things to say, but now that I am assured the member for Brampton is here, no doubt I will have lots of things to retort to. The member should not stand back; he should come forward with his inane comments.

I take a certain amount of pride in this program and in the fact that I had something to do with it. I am not trying to downgrade it in any way. It just seems to me that if the government has a successful program -- and, Lord knows, the government has demonstrated it has an awful lot that are unsuccessful, such as the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., which it has made a botch of -- that is running well and is on a roll, why does the government not run with it?

Instead of reducing the budget of the small business development corporations program to $25 million from the $30 million in previous years -- I understand that is in the budget -- why would the government not increase that to $50 million and encourage people? It never had any trouble using up that entire budget until it got around to setting aside so much for the north and so much for the south. If it feels that what it has assigned to northern and eastern Ontario is adequate for their needs -- in other words, it will not hit that -- then all right. If it knows it will have an overrun in southern Ontario, why not put some more money into the thing and encourage additional small businesses in southern and western Ontario?

Incidentally, I understand the economic situation in southwestern Ontario is becoming not much different from that of some parts of eastern Ontario. The unemployment rate in southwestern Ontario is becoming not much different. Why do we not call a spade a spade and say, "All right, let us have central Ontario and then all the rest," and put any kind of money into all the rest the government wants to? We should not penalize by shortening the budget in central Ontario, where the action has been up to now.

What I am trying to get at is, do not try to benefit one segment of Ontario by penalizing the others. Even the member for Port Arthur agrees with that. When he and I agree, it is time for me to re-examine my position. Nevertheless, I agree with him on this one. Even the member for Brampton might see some merit in that suggestion: Brampton and Mississauga are realities too; we are even outside the Metro Toronto border. I expect that gives us some kind of distinction, because there are very few of us left.

Mr. Philip: The Liberals just want to cover Mississauga with a megabomb.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please do not respond to the interjections, whether or not you can understand them.

Mr. Gregory: Was that an intelligent comment? I do not know.

The Deputy Speaker: Please do not respond to it. Just carry on --

Mr. Gregory: If it is, I would be very surprised since it came from the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

The Deputy Speaker: Please carry on with the debate.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you. I was almost finished until I was interrupted.

Incidentally, I am all in favour of any encouragement the government can give to eastern Ontario, particularly since I have recently become a small property owner in eastern Ontario. After my retirement from this grandiose place some years down the road, after another session or so in cabinet, I will probably --

Mr. South: We have immigration requirements there.

Mr. Gregory: As a matter of fact, I am going to be a very close neighbour of the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), and I will be looking for some kind of business encouragement down there after I am out of politics.

I encourage the parliamentary assistant to encourage the Treasurer to keep that money rolling into this program because, for a free-enterpriser such as myself, this is the ideal type of thing. I am sure the member for Waterloo North is in the same category. He is nodding, and I am sure he agrees with me. He even sits in the office where I used to sit. He could not help but do that and totally agree with what I am saying. Rightly so, we take a certain amount of pride in the program, as I am sure he does.

Mr. Philip: It will be a lead handshake for the member.

Mr. Gregory: Nobody has made me the kind of offer I have been hearing about in the House recently.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Please address the chair.

Mr. Gregory: I thought I was. I certainly will address you, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the member for Etobicoke.

I guess I am little disappointed in that I saw this program dating back about three years when I inherited it as the then Minister of Revenue. It was sort of a flag program. It stood out. It got raves. It even got raves from its critics, except I remember very well the Leader of the Opposition of the day stood up with a seeming problem and tried to punch holes in the SBDC program because of some lodge up north that was going down the tube. He claimed the SBDC program was also going down the tube, only to find, within days, that the program had secured all its money as the plan called for, and rightly so. There was no loss to Ontario, thus proving how solid the program was.

If it is so solid, why are they tinkering with it? Why are they fooling around with it? If they are going to make major changes, make them, instead of a little bit here and a little bit there, like services. There is nothing wrong with that. What about the transportation suggestion? Why was that not included? Why not do something real? Why not do a little of what the member for Port Arthur suggested, such as bringing in other northern industry? There must be all kinds of things being done in small businesses in the north that could be included under SBDC eligibility.

They cannot say it is because they do not have the money to do it. They have never yet used all the money allocated to northern Ontario under this program, and it is not likely they will. The government is saving money because it knows it is not going to use it all and it is paying 30 per cent; but where it is going to use all the money, it is only paying 25 per cent, which is pretty sharp business. I was going to say it is also a little deceitful, but I will not use that word. Smoke and mirrors is what it is.

They are putting $5 million less a year into it while trying to make it appear as if they are giving the north a lot more. They are giving exactly the same to the north as before, a 30 per cent bonus, and they are giving less to central and southern Ontario. It is too bad this is not going to committee. I would love to have a few entrepreneurs, who normally invest in these kinds of things, ask why the government is suddenly penalizing someone who happens to own a business in southern Ontario.

In the first year, an SBDC is required to have $100,000 in the program. That means an SBDC that lives up to the requirements of $100,000 in the first year has lost $5,000 in cash to those investors. That is not small potatoes by my standards. It is all right to say if they happen to be in the north, they will get $5,000 more, but they will not; they will get exactly the same as they have for the past seven years. Let us not try to cloud it by trying to make it appear that we are doing a great thing for northern Ontario. We are not doing anything great for northern Ontario in this or any other act.

The Premier told several communities in northern Ontario they could not expect the government to help them out and they should be looking for ways to solve their own problems. Is the government trying to help northern Ontario? To say something like that and to offer something such as they are doing in the guise of trying to help by giving more, when they are not giving a red penny more, is deceitful. Is that unparliamentary?

The Acting Speaker: It is unparliamentary.

Mr. Gregory: I will withdraw the word "deceitful."

Mr. Gillies: Bordering on.

Mr. Gregory: Bordering on unintentional deceitfulness -- terminological inexactitude.

Mr. Gillies: It has the appearance of a bald-faced lie.

Mr. Gregory: It certainly has. While the Premier was doing that was about the time he felt it appropriate to give $17.5 million out of the IDEA Corp. to his friend Abe Schwartz. That $17.5 million is larger than the amount of money the government is going to give northern Ontario for the entire SBDC program. That is incredible. We are really helping the north, are we not? I find that a little strange. We lost almost as much as we give to northern Ontario in this recent fiasco with the Black River-Matheson multi-year geological survey. We are losing $5 million on that. Was it $5 million?

16:40

Mr. South: Wait until the next election. You will see what you will lose.

Mr. Gregory: I am sorry to wake up the member. Was I speaking too loudly?

At any rate, that loss was almost as much as the entire budget, or it was about 50 per cent of the amount budgeted for the SBDC program in northern Ontario. We work in funny ways in government. This is certainly one of the strangest ways.

After these great, enlightening remarks, there are many other things I would like to touch on, but I know so many of my colleagues are chafing to get at this one that I am going to have to restrict myself in what I say; otherwise, I would become repetitious. I certainly would not want to become repetitious.

Mr. McGuigan: You did that about an hour ago.

Mr. Gregory: If the member noticed it and remembered, it is worth while saying it again. As a matter of fact, I have here a speech I delivered to the Northwestern Ontario Chartered Accountants' Association on this subject of SBDCs some time ago. There is only about 20 minutes of it. It is so interesting. If I were to give --

Mr. Foulds: Were you the minister then? Read the whole thing.

Mr. Gregory: I was the minister then, yes.

It says right here: "Notes were addressed by the Honourable Bud Gregory, Ontario Minister of Revenue, to the Northwestern Ontario Chartered Accountants' Association -- "

Mr. Foulds: Oh, those were the limousine days. I feel limousine nostalgia creeping up.

Mr. Gregory: I was up in Thunder Bay.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gregory: Do not provoke me. I am liable to read this whole thing. There are about 25 minutes of it. If I were to read this speech, I would be lauding the SBDC program, which is what I intend to do anyway. Do not misinterpret anything I have said to throw any criticism on the SBDC program. I am full of praise for it and I am full of praise for those people who developed it: the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) -- the former Treasurer, later Premier, of Ontario -- who developed this program, which was carried on very successfully by the next Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). The members all know the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

It was developed by some great people in the Ministry of Revenue -- the great Dr. Terry Russell, who might well be lurking in the gallery. I could in no way criticize the SBDC program. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The only thing I could say that would be in any way critical would be about the way the donkeys over there are handling it.

Mr. Polsinelli: That is unparliamentary.

Mr. Gregory: I should not say donkeys. I was going to say they do not have the brains of a donkey, but then I would have to disagree and say they certainly do.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member come back to his topic, please.

Mr. Gregory: I withdraw that terminology, sir, and that word "donkey."

Where was I before I was so rudely interrupted?

The program is tremendous, and has been. I cannot disagree with my colleague over there. I only wish the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was the Minister of Revenue. I have said that before. No, it was Housing. I said that, did I not? Revenue, too. The member would make an excellent Minister of Revenue, to carry on a great tradition that has been set up in the Ministry of Revenue. The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and the former member for St. David, Margaret Scrivener. We have had some great ones over the years.

The growth of the program has been tremendous. I would have hoped that in these times of success -- and these are times where there are unlimited funds for people to fool around with today, which we did not have in my day as Minister of Revenue. They can afford to put them aside for election promises and this sort of thing. They seem to find these great gobs of money for projects unheard of, and those that have not been fully thought out yet -- IDEA grants, that sort of thing, from dying programs. He found the money to do those things.

It would have been interesting to contemplate. If we take the $17.5 million that was given to Mr. Schwartz, the $4 million or $5 million that was given to the Grahams, the $3.5 million to Wyda Systems and so on, we are probably up to $25 million. That $25 million on those grants is equal to the total budget for small business development corporations in all of Ontario. That is what he gave away with those little grants.

Twenty per cent of those grants have gone bankrupt now, and who knows what we are going to read about tomorrow morning? We never know. Is it not a shame that this $25 million could not have been put into the SBDC program in addition to what was there, making it $50 million, each one of them on a controllable small business development corporation that the government had some control over, instead of what we have now, with the $4 million or $5 million to Graham Software down the tube, with no control, no recovery? The minister has stated that it is gone with little chance of recovery.

I will bet he is keeping his fingers crossed on the $17.5 million for Mr. Schwartz. I will bet his fingers are crossed every day because, if that ever went down the tube, he would really be in trouble over there. We do not know where the money went from Wyda. We will not be quite sure, until we find out about this audit, what is going to happen in it. Maybe we will find out that some of it -- hold your breath -- was used to pay off debts. Can the members imagine? We might well find that.

Had that $25 million, instead of being wasted that way, been put into a successful program with a proved rate of success, like this program, for $25 million how many SBDCs could you set up? For every $100,000, he requires, by his figures, $25,000 on the bonus. Right? If we divide $25,000 into $25 million, that comes to 1,000. One thousand SBDCs could be set up in a year with the amount of money he would have then. I am sorry; it would be double that. It would be 2,000. Am I right? Whatever. A lot. Who said I was good at mathematics?

He could do a lot. He could have doubled what his goal is for this year if he had done that, but no, he did not do it. He decided to tinker and make it look good to those in northern Ontario and those in eastern Ontario, who can use all the help they can get in setting up businesses.

There are two ways he could have done this. He could have expanded the eligibility of different kinds of industries or businesses that could have used this fund. Even if he had done that only in northern Ontario, it would probably have been acceptable. He could have put more money into the north or more money into the program generally; but he could also have not tinkered with the one in the south. The fact that we are trying to help the people in the north does not mean we should destroy a program that is working so successfully in the south.

That seems to be sort of counterproductive, as the member for Port Arthur has said. "Counterproductive" is the key word. The minister has given with one hand and taken away with the other hand. Is that what he did? Something like that. It is out of one pocket and into another. He really has not done anything except reduce the amount of funding in the budget overall by some $5 million, from $30 million to $25 million.

If that is progressive, then the word has a new meaning for me. It is not a word I use all the time. Is that not right? "Progressive" is not one of my usual words. Progressive means doing something that encourages small business to create employment for workers; that is progressive. He has not been progressive on this one; he has been regressive.

Mr. Foulds: The member should feel comfortable with that.

16:50

Mr. Gregory: No, not regressive. I have been kind to the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: That is what worries me.

Mr. Gregory: It should.

There is not much more to say about the bill, because the government has not done much. When I say I will support the bill, I am guided by my caucus. I am guided by my instincts to support it. I do not support what the government is doing with it, because I do not think it has done nearly enough. What it has done has not been very good or progressive. The bill is not geared to do what the original concept of the plan was. The government should go forward. It should never go backward, but it is going backward with this bill for the sake of saving $5 million a year. When it can blow $25 million on other idiotic schemes, it seems to me --

Mr. Haggerty: How about Minaki Lodge?

Mr. Gregory: How about Minaki Lodge? The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) is awake. I always know when I have said something that has hit a point. I always know when I hit a nerve, because the member for Erie wakes up. It is nice to have him with us. He should stop in more often.

Having said all these great things, I know the parliamentary assistant will immediately amend the bill to take into consideration the constructive criticism I have given him. He will immediately add $5 million to the budget, no doubt, and he will restore the 30 per cent bonus to the businesses in southern Ontario, because that has a certain amount of appeal.

It was very successful in Erie, for example. I know many people in Erie who took advantage of it. As a matter of fact, one of them went to jail. No, he was not related to -- I knew of one person down that way who went to jail. He tried to fool around. We got our money back, but he went to jail, rightly so. The fact that he was caught shows the efficiency of the program.

I know the parliamentary assistant will immediately forward my recommendations to the Treasurer when he returns from wherever he is now, Earl's Shell Service or wherever he is discussing policy, and an amendment will be forthcoming, especially when we reach the committee stage.

Mr. Guindon: I rise to support the small business development corporations proposal of Bill 24. While the amendments will help streamline the activities of the SBDC, it is yet another example of the Liberal government's tinkering with a problem and not taking any concrete action to help remedy it.

I will give members an example. We know 95 per cent of jobs are created by small businesses. By this fact, we also know our smokestacks in Ontario have failed us. In the past 10 years, 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the jobs have been created by small businesses. We also know the large manufacturers have pulled back. Their gross sales have dropped by roughly 17 per cent. On the other hand, the employment situation has dropped by about 10 per cent.

In Cornwall in eastern Ontario, our unemployment rate is 12.7 per cent at present. Unemployment is approximately 6.9 per cent across the province. To me, that is a flagrant disparity. That is one of the reasons I hope the amendment to Bill 24 will help streamline the process for small business entrepreneurs to be able to tap the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. or the small business development fund in a manner that is much easier for them and that will speed up the process.

One more example of poor initiative by the government is its new ventures program, which states that if one is interested in starting a small business, if one has $15,000 -- in the case of eastern Ontario, if one has $7,500 -- the government will guarantee a loan at the bank for $15,000. It also states that if one has been in business for not more than three months, one is eligible. However, there is a rider, which is that one must have $7,500 in the bank.

What small businessman would have $7,500 cash in the bank if he needs $15,000? He would not apply. If I were a small businessman and had $7,500 in the bank, I would not need an extra $15,000. If I did, I would probably be able to vouch for it myself at the bank. The new ventures program, for example, is not helping small businesses; it is not helping the starters. That may be something the minister should look into.

On other small business loans that are brought up from time to time, it is the time it takes to process the application. Small businessmen apply; the entrepreneur gets a verbal or a noncommital yes; he is told he can go ahead if he needs the equipment immediately for his expansion, to bridge-finance it for a few months or a few weeks; and willingly he goes to the bank and gets his bridge financing.

Here is what happened in the case of one of the businesses in my riding: When the businessman got to the bank, the bank said, "Fine, we will lend you the money," but the bank erroneously used -- without doing it on purpose, I imagine -- an incentive loan program from the federal government. He was automatically disqualified. He is not accepted any more by the small business branch.

Mr. Haggerty: The federal government is terrible, is it not?

Mr. Guindon: No. Those are the provincial rules. If he qualifies under the federal program, he is disqualified under the provincial program.

An entrepreneur who wants to go ahead and who sees this red tape and these complications automatically tries to pull back. He will say to himself, "So much for that deal."

I know there is some attempt to do it now, but the program should also consist of expertise. In eastern Ontario, which is a high unemployment area, we also lack some competitive entrepreneurs who are ready to take a risk. Those who already exist are our best asset. We should have in the small business development corporation a program that would enable the small entrepreneurs to sit down with retired bank managers, retired administrators and retired professional entrepreneurs to discuss their new ventures and minimize the risk.

There is one more thing I would like to point out to the government. Where is eastern Ontario and what parts of eastern Ontario? I suggest we should regionalize, because if we take the eastern Ontario unemployment rate as it is, it is much lower than 12.7 per cent. The government is taking in the cities of Ottawa and Kingston, and those areas are very wealthy and are expanding very rapidly.

If we want to be effective in the areas in eastern Ontario that have high unemployment, we should regionalize a little more and not just say eastern Ontario begins in Belleville or in Peterborough. That is too broad a spectrum. Whenever we start allocating the funds in areas, we find the same areas are getting most of it.

To help the small business development, and the small entrepreneur especially, the most important part would be to have a real competition bill, and it should have teeth. Apparently, there is one now in the federal House. I have read it quickly, but I do not think it will be sufficient to level the playing field for small business operators, to give them a fair chance. Sometimes we have large companies that run to governments for protection. They run for cover, actually; they run for subsidization in one way or another, and they are crying that they want a level playing field. Heck, for a small business entrepreneur, it is nothing but a cliff.

If we want to help eastern Ontario, we must take a second look at the proposed changes to the Municipal Act. Not only in eastern Ontario but in some other situations in Ontario, municipalities cannot afford the incentive programs that other municipalities or large cities seem to have.

17:00

Other than that, I would like to finish by saying we have to go ahead with the small business development, but we also have to improve it. The last way I would suggest today that we improve the small business development corporations would be to improve the loan situation for conversion. My example is something that happened in my own riding. A small business applies, is accepted and qualifies for, let us say, a $100,000 loan; it is tied to machinery and equipment. That small business starts up but does not need all, or may need half, the loan. Supposing it needs half of the $100,000, or $50,000. It cannot convert the remainder of the loan, the $50,000, to cash flow. There should be a quick and easy way of doing so without having to reapply for the balance of the loan or for another loan, which takes time.

In small business, action and reaction are very important. If a small businessman decides to expand his business, it is usually because of seasonal change, weather conditions or the buying market and the small business operator does not have six months.

Mr. Runciman: I have a few brief instructive and nonpartisan remarks to make. One of my colleagues mentioned earlier the term "smoke and mirrors." Essentially, there is a lot of that here, and not just in what the government is doing in this instance but in the bulk of actions undertaken by this government in its 18 months in office. It tries to give the impression it is doing great things for all parts of the province, but when one starts looking at the details behind these programs, one finds in most instances they are nothing more than optics: smoke and mirrors.

It has been emphasized that the funding has been frozen; no extra money is being provided. Some of the areas for which the government has found money are upsetting to many of us on this side of the House and to an increasing number of Ontarians at large.

We have talked about a number of things, but some things have not been mentioned, such as the enormous increases in salaries given to ministerial staff when the new government took office. We have executive assistants making an average of $57,000 a year, which is in the neighbourhood of $15,000 to $20,000 more than comparable staff made working for the previous government. We have --

Mr. Haggerty: Now for the principle of the bill.

Mr. Runciman: I will get around to the bill. We have also had our leader --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Let us hear some partisan remarks, so we can compare.

Mr. Callahan: I want to hear some partisan remarks.

Mr. Runciman: Totally nonpartisan.

Our leader has clearly accused the Premier of concealing $800 million from the taxpayers of this province. He is keeping it from eastern Ontario and northern Ontario. He is keeping it from all Ontarians: from the handicapped, seniors, students, laid-off workers.

There is no question. We have mentioned other funds. The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) mentioned the Abe Schwartz fiasco, with which we on this side of the House are not finished, Wyda and Graham Software. We can go on and on about the way this government has thrown millions and millions of dollars out the window. We are not going to let the government forget about it, and we are going to make sure the people of Ontario find out about it and soon.

I want to talk about some of the elements of this legislation. I agree with the suggestion made earlier that we should be considering the broadening of SBDC eligibility to cover some of the areas that are most seriously affected by the present situation in the economy. I am speaking specifically of eastern and northern Ontario. We know that southern Ontario has been experiencing a level of prosperity that has not occurred in the other areas. For that reason, they should be receiving more attention from the government.

To date, southern Ontario has reaped most of the rewards given by the government and particularly in the automobile sector. I heard recently where the mayor of Belleville was publicly chastising the new government, especially in this area where they had not done enough to encourage the automobile sector to invest in eastern Ontario. I find it quite strange. Mayor Zegouras, and I know him reasonably well, always wears a red tie to my knowledge and was reputed in any event to be a prominent member of the governing party. He came out quite strongly with criticism of that government for not doing enough for eastern Ontario. There is one of its own standing on a soapbox saying the government is not doing enough for that part of the province.

Several years ago, as a government backbencher, I tried to organize a group of municipalities in eastern Ontario into an eastern Ontario municipal association.

Mr. Callahan: What happened?

Mr. Runciman: It fell down the cracks, because the gentleman who was elected president of the association was not enthused about it and it never got off the ground.

One of the areas of concern that was expressed --

Mr. Callahan: It did not get to the breakfast meeting at the Park Plaza. No doubt about it.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Brampton remain quiet, please.

Mr. Runciman: That is almost impossible for that gentleman to do.

Mr. Haggerty: How about the member sticking to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Runciman: I am attempting to do that if all the people intervening would give me an opportunity to do so.

We had several meetings of the municipalities in eastern Ontario, and I attended them all. One of the first objectives of that group, if it had got off the ground, and this was a major concern expressed, was to define eastern Ontario. What is eastern Ontario? We found that various ministries have various definitions of eastern Ontario. As the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes) knows quite well, when the member for Frontenac-Addington is driving home and he gets to Napanee, he enters the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation's east district. Eastern Ontario begins this side of Napanee. Different ministries have different interpretations of what eastern Ontario is all about. That is a major concern and one that has not been looked at, one that has not been remedied.

I do not know how the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, or in this case the Ministry of Revenue, is defining eastern Ontario. When they are allocating specific dollars, are we getting shortchanged in the east, those of us who are truly residents of eastern Ontario? Many people around this building and in this city believe eastern Ontario starts at the eastern boundary of Metropolitan Toronto. That is a fact. That belief has been here for many years, and this government has not changed it. I am encouraging them to take a look at it and to try to clear up the confusion that exists out there.

I talked about broadening the eligibility for SBDCs. I have a number of municipalities in my riding; I think there are 16. Many of them are small rural communities with ageing and diminishing populations. They need assistance to revive those communities and keep them alive. We have to look at innovative ways of achieving that goal if we are not to face a serious problem in the not-too-distant future. I know we are seeing it in many of those communities in my area. The young people graduate from high school or university and simply have no opportunity available to them in many of those areas.

We talked about unemployment. The member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) mentioned his municipality. Unemployment is high in many areas of eastern Ontario and much higher than in the rest of the province. There is little evidence that things are going to improve in the near future.

The SBDC program as currently structured is obviously not working in the east. It is time the government showed some leadership and took concrete action to help these economically disadvantaged areas.

17:10

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Perhaps the honourable member would give us two minutes of partisan remarks so we can compare and contrast.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) wish to answer?

Mr. Runciman: I do not think the honourable member could stand it; he would have to leave the assembly if I got into partisanship. I try to stay away from partisan comments whenever and wherever possible.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill 24. I do not intend my interjection to be that lengthy, although I must say I could be provoked to lengthen it by my friend the member for Brampton. We will see how it goes, but I think --

Mr. Barlow: Could you make it last about an hour and 20 minutes?

Mr. Gillies: I could indeed. This 10 minutes could go to a good hour and 20 minutes if I am given sufficient fodder.

Mr. Callahan: Then we will leave now.

Mr. Gillies: There we go.

One thing I learned pretty early on after being elected was that one of the best ways to lengthen a speech is for other members to interject. There are some members around here who are very good at taking the ball and batting it back and forth. The current Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is a master of this. I have seen our friend stand in this assembly, armed with little more than a government phone directory, and with the right interjections and interventions by other members he can go on for an hour or two hours. I do not anticipate the necessity of doing that.

There are a couple of points to be made about this bill. I join with the other members of our caucus who have spoken in support of Bill 24.

I subscribe fully to the remarks made earlier by my colleague the member for Mississauga East, the former Minister of Revenue. I fully subscribe to the very positive remarks he made about this particular concept and the tangible benefits that I believe have been made for Ontario, for the small business sector, through SBDC.

I heard a member earlier questioning the whereabouts of the Treasurer. As I think many members of the assembly know, the Treasurer suffered a loss in his family this week. We are all very sorry and share in his grief. I am sure family duties are preventing him from being with us today. All members of the assembly would agree there are few members of the House with as many weighty responsibilities as the Treasurer, who is diligent in his attendance at the House. We know he would be here if he could. Anyway, his parliamentary assistant is here to represent very ably the ministry in this matter.

The primary aspect of the changes coming into Bill 24 that I would like to zero in on is the question of regionalization. As a member from western Ontario, I want to say at the outset that I am very much aware of the special needs and the economic problems being experienced in northern Ontario and in parts of the east. My colleague the member for Cochrane South has reminded the House as recently as today of the staggering unemployment rates being experienced especially in northeastern Ontario, especially among young people in many of these areas and, indeed, in other parts of the east.

We have had some benefits in southwestern Ontario in the past three or four years. When I think back to the beginning of the recession -- you, Mr. Speaker, as a neighbouring member in southwestern Ontario will remember this all too well -- some of our communities were among the first to fall into the trough during the recession period. I think many people saw the recession in Ontario first manifested in my community of Brantford. We went through a pretty rough time down there in the latter part of 1981 into 1982 and 1983.

Other communities in our part of the world, such as the cities of Woodstock and Chatham, experienced similar problems with the farm machinery industry. I see the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) here. He will recall the very serious situation with International Harvester that his area was going through at about the same time my area was going through some pretty rough times with Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment. We went through it, and many of our communities in southwestern Ontario have been able to recover very well.

We have some geographic advantages in terms of new industry wanting to locate in Ontario. We all know the story. They do a tour. Let us suppose it is an auto parts manufacturer or another secondary manufacturing venture, perhaps in metal fabrication or something of that sort. One of the prime determinants for them is locating close to the market, close to the best transportation routes available and close to other industries on which they depend for their various supplies and services.

We have benefited in the Golden Horseshoe and in parts of southwestern Ontario by a number of new developments. We are delighted that the Toyota plant will be locating in Cambridge and that the General Motors-Suzuki plant will be going to Ingersoll, much as I would have liked that plant to have come to Brantford. We put up the good fight to the short list, but Ingersoll is a community that will benefit enormously from it.

The location of these various industries is an obvious benefit to our area, but we can run into problems in breaking down the province regionally and assuming that the economy is stronger in all parts of western Ontario than in all parts of the east or the north. I am ready to concede that the unemployment rate right across the north is as bad as or worse than just about anywhere in western Ontario but, frankly, when we talk about eastern Ontario, we are also talking about Ottawa.

Ottawa is going through a pretty good economic cycle. I visit there from time to time, as other members do, on legislative business, speaking or whatever, and I very seldom drive through Ottawa without seeing all kinds of construction and activity that go with being the nation's capital and having an economy that is so heavily government-based.

Mr. Callahan: Its presence is being moved to other areas.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Brampton is helping me with my speech.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: They do not have recessions in Ottawa either.

Mr. Gillies: That is right. My friend the member for Kitchener makes a very good point. During the recession in 1982-82, there was no part of the country that was charging along full steam with new building and development as Ottawa was. Good for them. I am glad the people of Ottawa are doing well. The point I am trying to make is simply that there are better ways of determining the applicability of a program such as this than by saying it will apply in the east and the north and not in the west.

I would like to suggest to the parliamentary assistant one or two ways it might be done. It is a little late to amend the bill now, but, who knows, some of these suggestions may come into play down the road.

Earlier, I heard an interjection by my friend the member for Erie when a point was being made by another member about the unemployment rate in the north, which is very serious. I believe 12.7 per cent was the figure named. I heard the member for Erie interject, "Same as in Port Colborne." I think that is what he said. That is the point. Why should Port Colborne, which is not having a strong economic cycle in these times, not be able to benefit from a program such as this?

I can think of other cities. Mr. Speaker, I know your city of Woodstock has had some lingering unemployment and industrial problems coming out of the recession. There are communities everywhere in our province that could benefit from the application of the small business development corporations program. How do they do that?

There was a very interesting federal program brought in during the 1981-83 period by the previous federal government; it was called ILAP, the industry and labour adjustment program. ILAP was a program for which communities could apply and become eligible by virtue of a couple of factors: the unemployment rate in the community making the application, be it city, county or region; the industrial or economic infrastructure of the community; the prospects for future growth. All these things were taken into account. The program was flexible enough under the industry and labour adjustment program that the people administering it could say, "We think Port Colborne could benefit from this program;" or, to use a couple of real examples, Windsor was designated under ILAP, as was my riding of Brantford, a few others in southern Ontario and, I believe, several in the north, including Sault Ste. Marie, if I am not mistaken.

17:20

There was a flexibility there that I commend to the parliamentary assistant. I do not want to see any of the benefit under this legislation withheld from eastern or northern Ontario. That is not the point I am making. The only point I am making is that if the government changes the eligibility criteria somewhat and takes a look at the way ILAP did it a few years ago, maybe there is a way to channel the majority of our resources into eastern and northern Ontario where, I grant, the bulk of the need exists. At the same time, it might be able to channel a lesser portion of the benefit into other needy communities in western or even central Ontario.

I say again that it is all too easy for us to assume that the economic benefits of the boom related to the auto industry -- from which, I am the first to admit, my community is benefiting enormously, as are a few others in our part of the world -- are being felt evenly across western Ontario. I mentioned earlier the problems with the farm equipment manufacturing industry in the Chatham area and the aftershock of the collapse of one of the farm equipment companies in my riding of Brantford. I have already mentioned the Woodstock situation.

The employment rate in Woodstock and Oxford county is not as good as we would like it. I would like to see some improvement there. I understand the Sarnia area is in a bit of a trough these days because of problems associated with the petrochemical industry. So it goes. If we built in some flexibility --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are dealing with the budget bills of this government, with the budgetary policy of this government. There are nine government members in the House and I do not think a quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

17:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr. Gillies: I hold nobody responsible for the lack of quorum in the House. As I said earlier, it is my singular ability to draw a crowd which is manifesting itself once again, but I will, none the less, persevere.

I commend a couple of these suggested changes to the parliamentary assistant. I think a flexibility can be built into the SBDC program to accommodate some of the hard-hit communities in our province, wherever they might be.

As has been said earlier by other members, SBDC is a good program. It has worked well. I think one of the reasons it works well is that people know the rules and the way the program operates when they go into it. They also know the activities of the SBDC will be subject to ongoing monitoring and that, once into the program, they have to continue to play by those rules. We all know the limits, both upper and lower, on investment in an SBDC. We know a bit about the percentages which have to be invested in the small business sector year by year and so on, but it is a good program because it is tight.

It is a good program because the SBDCs -- a couple of which operate in my riding and which, I guess, would not be eligible under the new program, under Bill 24 -- know what they are doing. They know the rules of the game. They play by them, and if they do not play by them they are in trouble.

With that in mind, we have seen established in the province since July 1979 about 450 SBDCs, which have channelled, I understand, approximately $165 million in investment into about 400 businesses. Those figures may be slightly out of date. If they are, I apologize to the ministry officials under the gallery. I hope they are relatively up to date. This means the average investment, if one takes the $165 million and divides the 400 investments into it, is about $240,000 or so. There is quite an upward and downward variation on that, of course, but the point I want to make to the members of the government is simply this --

Mr. Callahan: Now he is coming to it. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Brampton is sitting on the edge of his seat waiting for it.

Mr. Callahan: I certainly am.

Mr. Gillies: He wonders where the devil Gillies is going with this.

The point is that it is a good program because it has definite criteria. People know the rules of the games when they get in; they know the rules of the game when they are in; and they know what happens if they break the rules. I contrast this very excellent SBDC program -- fathered, as was cited earlier, by the member for Muskoka -- with the way this government has worked with some of the other government-funding mechanisms since it took over.

It has gotten into trouble already with its high-tech fund, which is not even fully operational yet, and I am going to come back to that. It has gotten in trouble with the way the IDEA Corp. was handled in the past 16 months. It has gotten in trouble with these things because of a very fundamental problem within the government, which is a feeling, I believe, it had in its first year in office that it could really do just about anything it wanted and get away with it. I hope that lesson is learned.

Mr. Callahan: You have been reading The Power and the Tories, have you not?

Mr. Gillies: No. Let us be honest. Politically, I hope the lesson is not learned. I hope the government keeps doing it the way it has in the past while, but for the good of the province and for the good of our taxpaying public, I hope the lesson is learned. Remember that these SBDC funds are averaging about $250,000. The hard work, the very stringent criteria and the very tight program put into place to administer these $250,000 funds are in such marked contrast to the $17.5-million grant given out by the Premier to a buddy of his that it is absolutely staggering.

Picture it. Mr. Speaker is as aware as I or other members of the House of the criteria for SBDCs. They go on for pages. They set an upward limit of $5 million in investment for private corporations, $10 million for public, a minimum of $100,000, the trust percentage, how the investors work and how many voting shares. As the SBDC is capitalized, 30 per cent of its equity must be deposited into a fund held in trust by the corporation and the Ministry of Revenue. It goes on right down to the eligibility of small businesses and the percentages of the fund that have to be invested. This is a tight program. It tells you exactly how you have to do it, how you are eligible and how you are not eligible to handle funds averaging $250,000 each.

17:30

Over here we have the Premier putting out a news release from his office granting his associate, Mr. Schwartz, $17.5 million with no explanation as to what fund it is coming from or what criteria were gone through for the funding of the Exploracom project. I could go on. It staggers the mind that the government goes to the lengths it does to ensure the propriety and eligibility of relatively small investments and then there is the cavalier attitude with which $17.5 million is tossed out. I stood in the House --

Mr. Martel: What does this have to do with the bill?

Mr. Gillies: It has a lot to do with the bill. The member should listen. I will help him. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why it is important and what it has to do with the bill, because my friend the member for Sudbury East wants to know. Because he just came in recently, I want to take us back.

The SBDC program, as described and amended by Bill 24, is a tight, functional, clear, rational program. The way this government uses the taxpayer's money in any number of other comparable or quasi-comparable funding mechanisms such as the IDEA Corp. or the high-tech fund is ludicrous by comparison. Now my friend the member for Sudbury East understands the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Martel: The member is stretching it. The only reason he is getting away with it is the Speaker is a little lax today.

Mr. Gillies: Let us talk about that for a minute. The member for Sudbury East, in one of his usual pointed and thoughtful interjections, now has suggested that the Speaker himself is being lax. I have heard that adjective applied to any number of people, but to suggest that the Deputy Speaker, the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), now occupying the chair, is ever lax, this finely honed legal mind commanding the House to the level of order and sobriety that it now enjoys --

The Deputy Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. Gillies: Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. It boggles the mind. Why can the government not take a leaf from the SBDC program and put some order into a few of its other houses? We have the Premier announcing a $17.5 million grant from his office with no mention in the news release of a program. Only after being questioned in the House did the Premier belatedly decide that the grant was coming from a high-tech fund in the budget of the Treasurer the very budget from which Bill 24 is taken -- this is yet another tie-in, I say to the member for Sudbury East -- a high-tech fund that at the time the Exploracom grant was announced was not in place. The criteria were not there and there was no way any businessman in any of our ridings could pick up a clear set of criteria such as this and say, "I should apply for Mr. Peterson's high-tech fund;" or, "Clearly, I am not eligible, so I will not apply for Mr. Peterson's high-tech fund."

There was nothing such as that. There was no board of directors in place. There were no criteria. There was no application form, unlike Bill 24 and the SBDC program, under which any business person in any riding in the province could pick up the phone and call the appropriate officials of government and say, "Will you please explain to me how I go through applying for this program and how I can be eligible for this government program?" Unlike that, the high-tech fund was a complete mystery. One could phone everywhere in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. No one knew how to do it. Back in the spring they were saying, "If you call us back in the fall, we might be able to tell you how to apply, but right now we do not know. Nothing is in place." All this after the Premier had doled out $17.5 million to his friend.

This very clear, very tight program stands in marked contrast to the way the government has dealt with the IDEA Corp. since it took over. We have been over this ground. I do not think we need do it at any length, but, good Lord, perhaps if the same degree of scrutiny, the same degree of review and care, had been taken with some of those investments, we would not be going through the situation we are now with Graham Software, going down with $5 million of our tax dollars. Think of it; $5 million of our tax dollars invested in a company not a year ago, and it looks now as if it is all going to be gone.

That has not happened with any degree of regularity with our SBDC program. Its investments are monitored closely and watched. The criteria for investment are clear. All I am saying, and I hope the parliamentary assistant will pass it along to his colleagues, is that here is a good example of how to run a government funding program and here is a good example of how to create investment capital for our small businesses. If they took another look at the high-tech fund and a few things like that, they might see the benefit of having it all tightened down considerably more than it is.

To summarize, our caucus will be supporting Bill 24. We recognize the strengths of the SBDC program and we are very pleased the program is continuing. We recognize the special economic needs of northern and eastern Ontario. Having said that, I still commend to the parliamentary assistant and to the government a few of the suggestions I made as to how we might be able to target more precisely the application of this legislation, so that hard-hit communities with special needs, special unemployment problems and industrial infrastructure problems might be able to benefit from this wherever they are in Ontario. There are precedents, and I say to the parliamentary assistant, it can be done. I commend that to him.

The Deputy Speaker: Any comments and questions? There being none, does any other honourable member wish to participate? The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to spend a few moments addressing the amendments in Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Eastern Ontario has not benefited from the revitalized economic boom that has occurred in some parts of this province, particularly in regard to small business, and I feel somewhat aggrieved because of that. If we overlook the city of Ottawa, the seat of our federal government, which is more or less immune to economic difficulties, the rest of eastern Ontario is suffering through some very difficult economic times.

I note here in the explanatory notes that the purpose of the bill under (b), which I will quote because it is important, is "to authorize the minister to deny a payment from the trust fund established under section 8 of the act where there is any violation of the act, the regulations or the spirit and intent of the act."

That concerns me because I find quite often bureaucrats are looking for the small disparities. Sometimes they almost go out of their way to create difficulty when small businessmen and businesswomen are attempting to obtain some assistance from a so-called good government's intent. Sometimes it is very difficult. One wonders why these bureaucrats set up the hoops and barriers that very often not only create difficulty for business people, but also discourage them totally, so that they sometimes just give up, throw up their hands and say: "What is the use? The bureaucrats have won the game again."

17:40

I will cite a few examples of the so-called new ventures program that was announced by this government earlier this year. It is just not working. It sounded really good when it first came out. It was a big deal for eastern Ontario, which was going to be benefiting with a $15,000 guaranteed loan to the bank. It has turned out to be a nightmare. I say to the member for Frontenac-Addington, they had better look at that one again. It came in with a great deal of fanfare.

Mr. Mancini: Show us how it is a nightmare. That is a ridiculous statement.

Mr. Villeneuve: If it is ridiculous, when I am done explaining it the member for Essex South may think the ventures program is what is ridiculous.

I have had people come to me saying that because they incorporated three months too soon -- of course they had to incorporate, one has to set up a business so that is what one does -- there was no flexibility at all. A certain date had to be met, period. There was no flexibility at all. What did one have to do for a $15,000 deal for small businesses? One had to hire some employees. For a $15,000 injection into a business, if it is that small, a family-owned business, let us not have a criterion, a requirement, that says, "We have to hire some people."

It is great if one needs people, but why go meddling in the business world? This is a meddling government, meddling everywhere, imposing its own little rules, regulations and criteria on all of the so-called "good ideas." They all sound very good when they are first announced and initiated, but very soon the lustre wears off.

Mr. Mancini: See how many there are in the member's riding.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have requested that. As a matter of fact, I tell the member for Essex South, I have had some problems even getting a hold of people who can give me information that I think is very essential to those people who will be applying under the ventures program.

In my opinion, the ventures program has failed. I hope I am wrong and I hope the member for Essex South corrects some of those things that need to be corrected in that very bill. I had the owner of a small greenhouse operation come to me and say that $15,000 was fine. I spent several days discussing it with the people who administer the ventures program. It turns out that the owner of that operation needs not equity, but money in the bank, and that is a different story. That is not written in the rule book.

This man has equity; no problem. If he had that money in the bank, he would not need the ventures program. I hope the amendment to the small business development corporations is not that kind of a nightmare for small business.

I will cite a few examples of other problems that small businesses face, particularly in eastern Ontario. We have limitations on rezoning what is so-called agricultural land. I had an experience where a small businessman came to me and said, "I need to rezone a small parcel here so I can put up a service building to service customers who would basically require restaurant services and that type of business along a well-travelled highway."

As it turns out, the boys from 801 Bay Street told him this was class 3 agricultural land and therefore was a sacred cow. What happens? This man either takes his investment elsewhere or he just forgets about it. That is what is happening. Again, meddling by a government which says Big Brother knows best. This concerns me very much.

Setting up small businesses sounds good. One becomes one's own person. One is able to administer and run one's own business. It is a great idea but, all of a sudden, in comes the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour, I suppose, well intentioned and all, is in the process of shutting down small businesses, and I will cite some examples for members.

A small businessman is running a small garage, an auto body repair business, and he happens not to be a class B mechanic. The Ministry of Labour walks in. This man is doing a good job. People take their cars there. He fixes them up, patches up the holes, covers up the rust and paints them. What happens? The Ministry of Labour says, "Sorry, I do not see a certificate on the wall that says you are a class B mechanic." It shuts the doors. Is that helping small business? Is that the kind of thing we are talking about? It is happening and it is happening all too often.

Grievances by employees concern me. Again this has to do with the Ministry of Labour. A small businessman receives a visit from two employees of the Ministry of Labour who come in to check his books. An employee has complained that he was not paid overtime when he claims he should have been. Fine and dandy. They spend a whole day going through the books, the time sheets, the little punch clock papers. Everything is okay.

What happens? The small businessman has been literally harassed; not only literally, physically harassed, threatened by the Ministry of Labour, but all of a sudden, everything is okay. What does the employee get? He gets a letter stating, "Sorry, but your grievance has been looked into and it does not hold water." This man did not have a good set of books. This man was not a careful businessman. This former employee could have cost him umpteen thousands of dollars. That is the way it was and that is the way it is.

Mr. Mancini: The member should explain that.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am explaining to the member for Essex South. He has some difficulty in understanding the ways of business.

Mr. Mancini: That is quite a serious accusation. Physical harassment is very serious. Why does he not explain it?

The Acting Speaker: I remind the member for Essex South that he will have a chance to address his questions and comments for two minutes.

Mr. Villeneuve: The harassment from the government is something that small business could very nicely do without. It has turned into a problem where it is harassment right from the inception of trying to obtain some highly touted government assistance. Obstacles are put in the way from day one and they continue even after this business manages to get going and gets on its feet. We have all sorts of government officials trying to do their little bit of interference, always with the supposed intention of helping the small businessman.

The best way they could help the small business community in eastern Ontario would be to make themselves scarce. If they are called upon for advice or assistance, great; but we find all too often that some of the government bureaucrats stand in the way instead of trying to assist some of these small businesses.

In summary, I hope the Small Business Development Corporations Amendment Act, Bill 24, does not do what we see on paper -- indeed, what I quoted initially -- and that the bureaucrats do not, as it says here, under authority of the minister "deny a payment from the trust fund established under section 8 of the act where there is any violation of the act, the regulations or the spirit and intent of the act." That is a very negative statement right at the outset of the explanatory notes, and I feel that if these rules and regulations are cast in stone initially, it can always be found that obstacles will be placed in the way that will not assist but will, indeed, interfere with the normal progression of small business.

17:50

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of expressing some of the concerns that I have and that come from people in a riding that is very rural, agricultural and small business in nature.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to make a couple of short comments on the remarks made by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I find his comments really incredible. It is evident he does not understand the new ventures program. The rules and guidelines are very clear; they are available. He can call the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), if he has had some problems. I am sure the parliamentary assistant can explain them to him.

This is a program that is available to every new business in Ontario. It goes back to the day it was announced here in the House during the budget. When the member says there is no flexibility and that a small business was incorporated three months ago, this program which has been announced now goes back to the day it was announced here in the House. If there is some problem with the date, I recommend that the member call the member for Wellington South. I am sure it could be straightened out if that was the problem.

The other comment that is quite serious is that the member stated some business owner in his riding was physically harassed.

Mr. Villeneuve: I said only that he was harassed.

Mr. Mancini: The member said he was physically harassed, and that is quite a statement and quite an accusation to make against a civil servant. I am sure the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) would want to know immediately who went out and physically harassed a person in the member's riding. If this did not occur, the member should withdraw his statement and apologize.

Mr. Villeneuve: The member for Essex South used the word "physically." I never said it was physically, but this small businessman was harassed. He was visited and he had to produce documents -- documents that he had, thank goodness.

This businessman did not even know who these people were. They did not introduce themselves. For two thirds of the time they were there, he was under the impression that they were from Revenue Canada and not from the Ministry of Labour. He finally found out, I guess through further discussing, requesting, asking and literally pleading as to who they were and what they were doing there.

In my opinion, that is harassment, and it is not physical harassment. If the member got that idea, it is not physical harassment, but it certainly is harassment; whereas the employee who brought this to the Ministry of Labour simply got a letter saying, "Sorry, but your claim is not valid." I feel there should be a little more done on this, because this employee used the fact that he was formerly in the employ and was attempting to cause problems.

There may have been some misunderstanding, I do not know, but he attempted to bring to the fore some situations that were not the case. I feel the employee should bear some responsibility and should be asked to pay or at least to have it recognized that he brought forth some false information that had to be checked out. A lot of time is spent by government officials and small business owners trying to defend themselves against something that is not right.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I ask you to check the record of the comments made by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to see whether the words "physically harassed" were used. That is a very serious accusation and if it is not correct, it should be officially withdrawn by the member. I ask you to check the record at your first opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege, and I am sure you can check the record for your own information.

Are there any other members who wish to speak on this bill?

Mr. Harris: I do not intend to speak very long, but I do want to echo some of the concerns that some of the members of my caucus have put forward on the bill. It is obvious they are not significant changes and that is one of the things I want to speak about. Most of the members of my caucus have indicated they will not oppose this bill. There are several other things the government has on the table that we will take some time opposing.

This bill is another example of the Liberal government tinkering with a problem and not taking any concrete action that we can see or any other action in the budgetary process to help remedy existing problems. In particular, I will speak on behalf of my region of northern Ontario.

It appears to us as though the government has continued to ignore the plight of the small business sector; not only ignore the plight but also compound the plight of those in this sector, particularly those in northern and eastern Ontario. It has frozen funding for this program at $30 million at a time when overall government expenditures are increasing by 7.8 per cent. I talked about that during the budget debate and I will talk about that as we continue debating some of these budget bills. Inflation is running somewhere around 3.9 per cent to four per cent and government spending is up 7.8 per cent -- substantially above inflation; close to double -- for the second year in a row.

At the same time, here is a program that could benefit northern Ontario significantly, and other areas of the province as well, and it is flat-lined at $30 million. It is interesting that the spending of the cabinet office and the Premier's office is up 300 per cent at the same time -- a 300 per cent increase -- and not one member other than the parliamentary assistant in the Liberal caucus wants to talk about that. The member for Cochrane South indicates that he is ready. That is the kind of thing those of us who are not in cabinet, regardless of which party we are in, would want to take a look at.

The economies of eastern and northern Ontario are not experiencing the same level of prosperity as is southern Ontario. We know that. We have talked about that in this House on numerous occasions. For that reason, we feel they should get more attention from this government.

We talked about unemployment in the north in question period today when my colleague the member for Cochrane South was questioning the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who I might add did not seem to know what the unemployment rates were, particularly when he was in North Bay. He did not have a clue. Perhaps it bears repeating so that the government might learn what some of these situations are in the north. It is 10.1 per cent in northern Ontario, with a provincial average of 7.1 per cent.

The situation is not improving. As some economic recovery has occurred in southern Ontario, the north continues to have problems. When one looks at the increasing number of layoffs, it gets to be a little bit scary. For the first seven months of this year, 9.2 per cent of the population, 26.5 per cent of the province's layoffs. Those numbers are a little scary.

Not only are they not participating equally in the recovery, but many areas of northern Ontario are going backwards. Towns such as Nakina, Elliot Lake and Terrace Bay have been devastated by some of the recent announcements of layoffs. It appears the only hope for these communities is to develop their own industrial and commercial base. We believe more assistance through the SBDC program could be one area that would be a good place to start.

18:00

From our perspective in the north, the difficulty that has been experienced with the SBDC program is that southern Ontario has reaped most of the rewards of this program. The area that least needs it has reaped most of the rewards, particularly in the automobile sector. We think it is time that northern Ontario began to receive far more attention than it is getting and certainly the attention we think it deserves.

Eastern Ontario is having difficulties at this time. Unemployment levels are much higher than those in the rest of the province and have been so over this past year. There is little evidence that things will improve in these areas and that this government cares. The SBDC program is not working for northern and eastern Ontario. It is time the government took some leadership, some concrete action, to help these economically disadvantaged areas. It had an opportunity to do so and it did nothing through this program.

It surprised me that the only change to this program was to take five per cent away from southern Ontario. There is no change for northern Ontario; it is 30 per cent. The uptake was not taking place there. The amount of money in the program has not changed. It strikes me as odd that the government feels this is somehow going to help us. It is not going to change anything.

The government also announced in the May budget that it was going to continue and broaden the community economic transformation agreements program. The CETA program was implemented in 1984 with funding of $20 million for the first year. What does the Liberal government now propose? It has promised to spend $25 million over the next two years. It did so with great fanfare, travelling to the north, making this wonderful announcement and cut back the funding. That is not a strong commitment to those communities that desperately need help.

We have seen no compassion from this government or from this Premier for those communities that have experienced economic disaster. He came to the north the odd time during the by-election; perhaps it was to pick up more money and bring it back south. When he came to North Bay, several groups had asked to meet with the Premier. Those that bought the $100 tickets got to shake his hand.

Mr. Pope: The rest of them got the back of the hand.

Mr. Harris: The rest of them got the back of the hand.

Could I ask the member for Cochrane South to give the lines a second sooner? If I got them a second sooner I could get them out and it would flow better, I am sure.

While he was in the north, and the by-election came and that brought him to the north, he told several communities they could not expect the government to help them out; they should be looking for ways to solve their problems. The SBDC is one of those ways. Making it more attractive for northern Ontario investment by putting more money into the program is one of the ways that those of us in the north could have helped ourselves out. As we know, the Premier said: "You are on your own. We are not helping you. If you cannot do it, tough bananas."

Here was a way the government could have helped us do a little bit of it on our own, but it appears it does not want to give us a hand either, except for the back of the hand.

I guess it bothers people in the north when all this goes on at the same time as they see severance packages in the $2-million range and Abe Schwartz, the Premier's friend, is able to pick up $17.5 million for some high-faluting electronic museum in Toronto. Toronto really needs more government help. That $17.5 million would go a long way towards helping northern and eastern Ontario.

This whole budget has been disappointing. I suspect it has been a disappointing budget to the government, because for the first time that I can recall in the history of Ontario politics a budget was introduced in the spring and nobody thought enough of it to debate the budget bills until after the summer recess.

It was going to help so bloody much. What did they do during the summer? They said, "They will all come into effect when they get royal assent." We asked, "When will they get royal assent?" They said: "We do not know. We do not want to do them in May. We do not want to do them in June. We do not want to do them in July. We do not care about August. We do not care about September. Maybe in October, when we come back, we will start looking at the budget bills."

That is a joke. One has a budget that is introduced in the spring and takes effect in the spring. One gets the budget bills done and gets on with it. One sees what effect they have. Not all budget bills will be perfect. A budget makes a prediction of the future; it proposes some changes. We are not asking for a 100 per cent, crystal-ball look into the future that says everything will work perfectly.

I guess the government hopes to get these bills passed by Christmas. At the same time, I understand the Treasurer wants to start talking some time in November or December about the next budget. Here we are, halfway through October, before we have started into the first budget bill. I find it absolutely astounding that the government thought so little of this budget that it did not want to bring forward the legislation to deal with the budget bills.

I know the member for Cochrane South has a few points he would like to make on this. I yield the floor to him at this time to return at a later date on Bill 26.

Mr. Mancini: I want to say to the previous speaker that there was a very good reason there were not a lot of comments made on the budget. The opposition made very few comments on the budget because this was the first budget in a long time that had no general tax increases. That is one of the reasons the opposition did not want to talk about the budget.

Mr. Barlow: Because of good management from the previous government.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: The previous speaker seemed to indicate that there was really nothing going on around Queen's Park, that we had kind of shut the place down until October and that we could not do anything until we got back in the fall. As the House leader of the Conservative Party, he should know the difficulty we are having in the Legislature trying to do all the business that needs to be done because of the numerous things we have before us.

Because he was involved in the process, the member knows of the number of committees that had to sit this summer and of the number of the Conservative Party's own members who could not spend enough time in their ridings to do the things they have to do because of the obligations that were forced upon us by all the committee work we all had to do.

It is very unfair for the House leader of the Conservative Party to say that all the members of the House were sloughing off all summer with nothing to do. He knows very well that all of us were working very hard, including his own members.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I could respond briefly. I did not say all members of the House; I said the Liberal members. I was very specific and very partisan in saying the Liberal members of the House did not think the budgetary policy of their government was important enough to pass these bills.

The member also talked about there being no general tax increases. The last budget where there were no general tax increases was the budget of 1984, brought in by the now leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition; there was not a single cent of tax increases. What has happened since then? We had a budget brought in with about $850 million -- close to $1 billion -- of tax increases. This budget has substantial hidden tax increases in it.

I do not have my budget document with me, but I will refer to it tomorrow when I talk on Bill 26 and read into the record the massive increase in revenue that this government is planning to take out of this province this year over last year. About double the rate of inflation is what they propose to take out of this province. In the budget, there are tax increases about double the rate of inflation that they plan to take in.

It strikes me that the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) -- I have to be very careful how I phrase this -- does a taffy pull with the truth.

18:10

The Deputy Speaker: I think perhaps you should rephrase that.

Mr. Harris: Stop the clock while you are interrupting me. I have another comment.

The Deputy Speaker: No. I think you had better withdraw that comment. Withdraw that and then rephrase as you wish.

Mr. Harris: Are you suggesting the comment I have used is unparliamentary?

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Harris: If you say it is, I will withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Harris: That is not the intent, but I will withdraw the comment. I see my time has expired.

Mr. Pope: I was not going to comment on the bill; I was going to leave it to my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who is a more capable spokesman than I am.

Mr. Foulds: So far, you are right.

Mr. Pope: With respect to the member for Essex South, whose private counsel I welcome but whose public comment is usually irrelevant --

Mr. Foulds: He is right twice in a row.

Mr. Pope: -- there were tax increases in the last budget, seven different tax increases; and for the member to say there were not, I think he may have had a lapse of memory.

I want also to say that the economic situation in this province now vis-à-vis government revenue versus expenditure is a tribute to the governments of the past, not to this government. Everyone who understands financial and budgetary matters and financial forecasts of government knows that. We left the province in a good state financially. We left revenues.

Mr. Foulds: Ha!

Mr. Pope: All I can say to the member for Port Arthur is that I think there is a growing feeling in his party that the old days were better than the present days.

Mr. Foulds: They are all bad days.

Mr. Pope: They are all bad, are they?

I do not think the member for Essex South should be hung with being the spokesman for the government because there are no cabinet ministers in the Legislature right now -- they do not think it is important enough to be here -- but when there are spokesmen available from the cabinet, I presume they will answer not only for the increase in revenues but also for the expenditure levels, the waste of public money we have seen during the past two days.

Perhaps for a change they will answer the question about the hidden $800 million in revenues that they are not telling the public about and that they are saving up for next spring when they roll out the goodies. Perhaps some spokesman from the government will have enough stature to stand up here in the House and tell it like it is in terms of revenues opposed to expenditures and what the true picture of affairs is in the government of Ontario.

With respect to small business, we have seen quite a manoeuvre by the government during the past four months -- the member for Erie does not have to stay; I will be going for a while and he will be able to hear it.

Mr. Callahan: No. Let him go.

Mr. Pope: My friend the member for Brampton, who always sits in on my addresses -- he always feels it is important enough to be here --

Mr. Callahan: I want to make sure the member is here all the time.

Mr. Pope: I am glad he is so concerned about it. I wish him good luck in his practice as well.

In northern Ontario, not only in the small business sector but also at the municipal level, we witnessed quite an operation by the Premier of the day. We have seen all the token appearances, the gestures, the media hype, the nonsense -- which we call something else in northern Ontario -- with respect to government programs that are going to help the north. We have seen it all summer and into the fall. We have had news conferences in Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Sudbury, Timmins and Thunder Bay. We have heard all the great announcements from this government to help small business in northern Ontario.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said it so well today. He cannot identify one single job that has been created in northern Ontario through his initiatives. He cannot identify one single laid-off resource worker in small business who has been employed in northern Ontario as a result of this government's initiatives.

What did the last government do?

Mr. Callahan: We are the last government.

Mr. Pope: Right.

We had 7,500 workers employed in the resource sector in 1984 under sections 38 and 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act through the previous provincial government's initiatives. By 1985 that went to 10,000. The Liberals do not even have an employment program under sections 38 and 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They do not think it is important enough to do it. They all sit there and accept what this government is doing to the people of northern Ontario as though it is all okay. There is not a single job under sections 38 and 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act in place today in Ontario or in northern Ontario, a region that has more than 11 per cent unemployment. Those members are proud to sit there and heckle on behalf of that government.

What is the government's answer for single-resource communities that could use small business assistance, that could use some program to help small business develop? What is its initiative? The government has a conference in Sudbury to which only Liberals are invited. Only Liberal spokesmen are invited to the single-resource community conference. What does Liberal after Liberal come up to Sudbury and say? "Find your own solutions. You are on your own." This is the government of all Ontario telling the communities of northern Ontario they are on their own. That is the Liberal answer to small business in northern Ontario: "You are on your own." No temporary employment programs; not a single employment program for laid-off resource workers, whether they are in Wawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Terrace Bay or Thunder Bay. Nothing.

The government has the nerve to come in here with a program for small business in northern Ontario that is meaningless. It does not match what the government has said across the north in the past six months. More important, it does not match what the government has done in northern Ontario in the past six months. The Liberals have the nerve to sit there in self-satisfaction and think they have done a good job.

There is an unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie of 12.8 per cent, there is an unemployment rate in North Bay of 12.8 per cent, there is an unemployment rate in Sudbury of 15.5 per cent, there is an unemployment rate in Thunder Bay of more than 10 per cent -- and the Liberals sit here in self-satisfaction talking about the Small Business Development Corporations Act. We have 25 per cent of the layoffs in this province in an area that has nine per cent of the population. They are satisfied to support that. Give me a break.

The government has done nothing in northern Ontario. It has all been optics and reannouncements of previous Conservative government programs. What did they announce in Timmins? I will tell the members. The Liberals came to Timmins with great fanfare for a command performance by the Premier. He got up and said, "We are going to have an aeromagnetic survey program west of Timmins." That program was scheduled in 1984. It was the fifth in a series that started in Kirkland Lake, went on to Matheson then south to Kapuskasing and west to Timmins. There was nothing new in that. It was already scheduled.

18:20

What did the government announce in Sudbury? It was going to move the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to northern Ontario, but what did it do to that ministry before moving it? First, it kept all the best-qualified personnel in the Ministry of Natural Resources when it separated it. I am talking about the regional director of the Ministry of Natural Resources from Sudbury, Mike Klugman, who is a geologist. I am talking about Ray Riley, the regional director for the Ministry of Natural Resources in Cochrane, a geologist. I am talking about the personnel in the upper echelons of that ministry who are geologists, put there by the previous administration and a previous minister

Then the government gutted the ministry with respect to the mining tax people and moved them over to the Ministry of Revenue. Whatever was left of the mining lands branch, it will move to Sudbury in three years' time. Not now; in three years' time it is going to happen, they say. That is what the government announced in Sudbury. It never asked any opinions from the mining community. It never dealt with the Ontario Securities Commission needs of the north when it was making these decisions.

Then the government goes to Sault Ste. Marie. What is its answer to the Algoma Steel people in Saint Ste. Marie or the iron ore miners in Wawa? They are going to move a couple of hundred positions from Toronto, take the Toronto people and put them in Sault Ste. Marie. Name me one laid-off worker in Sault Ste. Marie or Wawa who is going to get the benefit of that program.

What else are they going to do in Sault Ste. Marie, as they announced with great fanfare and had all of their supporters saying it was the best news they had heard in a decade? They put a few thousand dollars into a fisheries improvement program to enhance tourism. That was started in 1984, when I was Minister of Natural Resources, in co-operation with the Sault and District Anglers' Association after full public consultation. All they did was reannounce something that had already been done.

What did they do in Thunder Bay with another great fanfare? They had their supporter Dean Rosehart there. What did they do? They announced $4 million for Lakehead University, a project that had already been approved before the change of government. That was no new initiative at all. They announced more than $1 million in the forest technology unit. That was the fifth unit in Ontario. It was an initiative of the previous government.

It is all optics. It is all political nonsense. It is all media hype. They have not addressed the needs of northern Ontario. They have not developed a single new program for northern Ontario in their 18 months in government, not one, and they have the nerve to sit here today and say they are addressing the needs of northern Ontario. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology says he has created jobs up north and he cannot name one single project that has been created.

Mr. Ferraro: That is wrong.

Mr. Pope: The member opposite says it is wrong. Maybe when he has been here longer, he will know what is going on.

This bill does not address the needs of the north or the needs of small business in the north. One of the things they are attempting to encourage, they say in their media hype, is the small business access to milling facilities in northern Ontario. Here is the greatest hypocrisy, which so represents the Liberal Party of Ontario.

We put a custom gold mill in my community in 1984. It was the fourth one in the province. We also had one on the shores of Lake Nipigon, we had one in Kirkland Lake and we were developing one in the Thunder Bay region. Timmins was the fourth. It was a pilot project. It was for the sampling of ore from small- and medium-sized mines in order for them to generate capital to reinvest in their properties, to bring these mines on stream, to give them the capital to allow them to expand and to employ people.

What has this government actually done, as opposed to the nonsense that is reported in Toronto and the nonsense that is spoken in this Legislature? The Ministry of Natural Resources has gone across northern Ontario and said there is no need for custom milling facilities in northern Ontario at this time, in spite of the unanimous opinion of people involved in mining exploration and development and the unanimous opinion of the small mines sector in northern Ontario that we need a large custom milling facility to bring these projects on stream to employ people in different parts of northern Ontario.

The minister has the nerve to say today that this bill is going to encourage milling facilities in northern Ontario. What a bunch of nonsense. In other ministries -- the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines -- they have turned it off. They have said the program is not going to be available; there is no way they are going to support the development of these milling facilities.

What about the small business sector with respect to reforestation? If the minister thinks he is doing such a great job for northern Ontario in the reforestation business, he should go and meet with the small, private entrepreneurs that we have involved in the reforestation program and ask them about the audit they had to go through for the last year in the hope this Liberal government could catch the former Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South, on the take.

Go and ask them what they had to go through. Go and ask them what they found. They found absolutely nothing, other than a commitment to get small businessmen involved in reforestation in northern Ontario in small one-industry communities, so that there could be some diversification, so people could get some jobs. They found nothing because it was a legitimate program of the Conservative government.

Ask why the Minister of Natural Resources is cutting off that program and undermining it by public and private activity; then tell me to agree that the small business sector is an important part of the future of northern Ontario. Carry on with the hypocrisy, talk about what he wants to talk about here and then tell me what is really going on in the way the government is conducted in the province, with small businessmen having to put up with that nonsense for partisan political purposes out of this new government in Ontario.

Do not tell me that because I know exactly what went on and why it went on. The government has systematically stopped the development of the small business sector in the natural resources industry in northern Ontario with its policies. There is nothing here to encourage them. They have been turned off through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and through the Ministry of Natural Resources. It is a shame to sit here today and say the government has the answers for northern Ontario and that this bill represents its initiatives to help small business in northern Ontario.

We have a situation where the figures from the Ministry of Labour condemn the government's inaction. In northeastern Ontario, there is 11.3 per cent unemployment. I have talked about the specific communities. What about the specific layoffs? What about the Kidd Creek workers in Timmins? What help were they given? What has been done for the 250 people who were laid off in Timmins with respect to Kidd Creek Mines? Name one person who has been helped by the government? The manpower adjustment committee was not even set up until I threatened to make it an issue.

There has been no section 38 or 39 help for temporary employment anywhere in the mining sector in the community of Timmins. There have been no answers from the Minister of Labour, who systematically stonewalled every request in writing and verbally to obtain information on what they were doing. There has been absolutely nothing for the laid-off workers of Kidd Creek.

What has the government done for the laid-off workers at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie? How has the private sector been opened up for the small business sector? Can he name one laid-off worker at Algoma Steel the government has employed with all its grandiose schemes and media hype down here in Toronto? Can he name one iron-ore miner in Wawa that the government has employed as a result of its imperial tours of northern Ontario? He can be head of the red army all he likes, he can get his picture in Toronto Life, in Cosmopolitan, he can be father of the year, he can do whatever he wants, but tell me what has been done in substance for the people of northern Ontario? What has been done for the small business community in northern Ontario?

A few token pieces of legislation were introduced and, at the same time, under the table the knife was put between the ribs. The government has systematically denied employment and economic opportunities for the people in northern Ontario. Does it think it is going to get some bills through this session? It should come up with some comprehensive policies for northern Ontario and come up with an employment strategy for the region with the worst unemployment in Ontario. Come up with that policy.

Mr. Callahan: It would not matter. Those guys would filibuster it anyway.

Mr. Pope: To the member for Brampton, I say --

Mr. Callahan: The member represents the north and he stands over there and filibusters.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for Brampton please let the member for Cochrane South finish? I draw your attention to the clock.

Mr. Pope: I heard a member talk nonsense for an hour yesterday when he spoke as chairman of a committee and tried to put his own interpretation on a report, an interpretation that was not accepted by anyone on this side of the House. The member has the nerve to talk to me about a filibuster. I can tell my friend I am just getting started. This government is a joke; it is a disgrace.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Cochrane South will move adjournment of the debate.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

15 octobre 1986