Journal des débats 1986-oct-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Shymko: From the years I have served in public office, I think what I will have to say now will be shared by all the members present today, namely, that private members' hour, such as that held today, is one of the most sacred moments for any member of the Legislature or member of Parliament. The. reason is that, for a moment, we can dissociate ourselves from partisan differences and, in the complexity of our system, introduce motions, resolutions and bills that demand an objective analysis and a conscientious decision of support or opposition by all honourable members.

During moments such as these, sometimes even caucuses split over issues and one has free votes instead of total support.

An hon. member: Isn't that something.

Mr. Shymko: My honourable colleague says, "Isn't that something."

That is precisely the nature of private members' bills, that we can vote on our own private, individual convictions and the feelings we share on certain issues. The visitors in the public gallery today, young people, are witnessing, as are the members of this Legislature, a very historic moment. If the bill I am introducing today is passed on second reading, and if, by some stroke of divine providence, destiny or fate, the government sees fit that this private bill should go for third reading, we will be witnessing a historic moment in Ontario because, although this bill may have unanimous support from all of us here today, it is the government which sets the agenda for third reading.

In my concluding remarks, I will be appealing to everyone present and absent that we give serious consideration to the historic nature of this bill, which for the first time will require that all manufacturers and producers of liquor products in this province list the chemical ingredients of their products on the labels of their products. No jurisdiction in the world is doing this today. Ontario is first. I hope the precedent we will be setting will be followed by other jurisdictions, particularly that of the federal government. It will have a major impact on the lives and the health of our citizens.

The information on these ingredients is readily and freely available from our laboratory at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. It has provided leadership and innovation internationally. Its chemists and scientists discovered carcinogenic substances that no one in the world knew existed. I refer to ethyl carbamate, discovered by our laboratory in 1979. Talking about coverups, if the members have read the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario, they will realize that information was withheld from the public and from the authorities, according to Mr. Justice Osler, because of a collusion between the LCBO management and the liquor producers of this province.

Members may have read some of the articles in the media that say this bill will never pass because politicians are guided by only one law: political expediency; to hide things, to cover up, say the media. I have faith in our elected officials and in each of the members present that the decision we will be making today will be based on conscience and our concerns for the health of our people and not on political expediency. We will not continue any coverup. I remind the members that if this bill does not pass and it dies on the Orders and Notices, indeed it will be a coverup.

Having visited the laboratory for almost half a day, I decided to prepare this bill. It was a decision that was made relatively recently because, having spoken to Dr. Karumanchiri, the chief chemist and the present acting director of the laboratory, I could not believe the chemical brew we find in our liquor products; they can only be described as "Love Canal cocktails."

When one looks at the Liquor Control Act, which defines our products, one reads that wine, for example, is described as being "obtained by the fermentation of the natural sugar contents of fruits, including grapes, apples and other agricultural products containing sugar, and including honey and milk." The ingredients almost give one the impression of subliminal advertising that this is indeed the land of milk and honey. Why would one not drink milk? Sugar, honey, milk.

10:10

Take a look at the definition of liquor. It says it "includes any alcohol in a form appropriate for human consumption."

Mr. Dean: Is there any form that is appropriate?

Mr. Shymko: We will talk about it; just wait until the member hears the list.

In describing alcohol, the only reference to a chemical content that is non-natural is to the fact that it includes synthetic ethyl alcohol. That is the only reference.

Let me read what our consumers are consuming into the temples of the human spirit, if I may so describe our bodies. It includes the following ingredients: synthetic dyes, eight varieties of them; sodium; sorbic acid; methanol; nitrosamines, cancer-causing ingredients that existed in beer in very dangerous levels right up to 1980, six years ago; and ethyl carbamate. Let us remember the famous coverup of ethyl carbamate, which was discovered in our labs in 1979; one of the scientists was even removed from doing experimentation because they knew and warned about it, and it was squashed because the interests of the liquor lobby superseded the welfare, lives and health of our people.

Mr. McGuigan: What government would do that?

Mr. Shymko: I wonder what government would indeed do this. I am being nonpartisan. One should read the report before making any remarks about a government, because the authorities were kept from being aware, at least according to Osler's report. I do not know anything more than this, but let us not become partisan in this issue, I beg members.

There is diethylene glycol, another word for antifreeze. Do members know that antifreeze is allowed today in our liquors? It has not been withdrawn. For example, 10,000 particles per billion of antifreeze are allowed as a maximum level, according to the LCBO guidelines; so it has not been eliminated. Ethyl carbamate is also still allowed in various levels of maximum guidelines. There is arsenic, potassium ferrocyanide, tartaric acid, volatile acids and sulphur dioxide.

It contains the following metals: iron, zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, cobalt, coumarin, antimony, selenium, silver, mercury and asbestos. Members will recall the famous problems we had with asbestos years ago. It contains agricultural chemicals that are unknown today in terms of pesticides, fungicides and other elements, fluorine, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, sucrose, glucose, soluble sulphates, ascorbic acid and hydrogen sulfide.

The other new substances that, according to the report, are going to be tested this year are calcium, fungicides, pesticides, polyvinyl-pyrrolidone -- whatever that means -- dimethyl pyrocarbonate, etc. It lists all of that, indeed a chemical brew.

My dear colleagues should read this report. Time does not allow me to go into the details of the report, but it is a true adventure in mystery, absurdity and contradictions in a coverup that beats any novel I have read lately.

There is information that I will not call false, but I will say it is misleading, in the conclusions that were reached by this royal commission. That misleading, incorrect information is why we have this bill. When I read this report, I said, "There is no way we will allow this conclusion to be reached."

On page 102, the report says that today we have "sophisticated methods" of detecting all these chemicals and detectable substances and "the spread of a consumer movement and of the law governing product liability has made" the public "increasingly aware of the possibility of the existence of health-threatening substances in food, including liquor."

That is not true; in food, yes, but excluding liquor. For years, while our government mandated that we should know the ingredients in cornflakes or in a can of beans, the liquor industry was exempted from listing its ingredients.

I do not have to tell the members that our laws say that if you go to a licensed establishment, a restaurant, you can consume up to 40 per cent liquor versus 60 per cent food. We tell people to consume even more than 40 per cent. I think the arrangement and the proportion now is 50-50. Yet we do not protect the public, in the consumption of that 40 to 50 per cent, through its being aware of what it is consuming.

As well, more than 20 per cent of our population suffers from various allergies. I do not have to remind my honourable colleagues that ingredients such as sulphite, which was recently discussed in the media, can instantaneously kill an individual who is allergic to it. There is evidence in reported fatalities in the United States and Canada of individuals who were allergic to the substance, drank a glass of wine containing it and died within a matter of a few hours.

We can no longer tolerate the coverup that we as lawmakers have allowed for the past decades in preventing the consuming public from being told what it is consuming in liquor. That is all I am requesting, that in our jurisdiction we exercise the responsibilities we have towards our citizens. I refer to the report again: "The protection of consumer interests generally in this province is undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the government of Ontario." It will be a cop-out if we say it is for another jurisdiction. This is our jurisdiction.

The LCBO is the world's largest purchaser of alcoholic products, having made and reaped profits for the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of approximately $604 million last year. We understand the implications of the lobby this indirect tax brings to us, but this should not in any way affect our conscientious responsibility to the consuming public and its health.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the time that is left could be retained for my concluding remarks.

Mr. Speaker: The member has reserved four minutes and 21 seconds.

10:20

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise to speak on the bill before us, I suppose for two reasons. First, as a consumer critic, I feel some responsibility in this regard. Second, I come from the Niagara region, where the very best wines are produced. I want to see the public is assured of this by the very fact that from the labels it will know that there are no additives put in the wine and that it is real, pure stuff that comes from the Niagara region.

I compliment the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) for introducing this bill. I will say immediately, as he would suspect, that I support it in principle. I recognize, as I am sure the member does, that this does not provide the whole answer to the problem. Certainly, we must have strict supervision and enforcement of the quality and openness on the part of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario with all its testing and so on, but this does add very much to the right of people to have pure food to eat and pure liquid products to drink.

I am a little confused about the bill where it says it would "prohibit manufacturers from selling a product unless all of the chemical ingredients contained in the product," and it goes on to list those, "are identified and listed on the labels of the product in such measurements as set out in the board guidelines regarding the composition of beer, liquor, spirits and wine." Perhaps the member in his final four minutes will explain that a little further. I presume what is meant there is that the guidelines would also be set out and the manufacturers would then state where their product fits within those guidelines.

Although it does not provide the whole answer to the problem of ensuring that we have pure liquids to drink, it does enhance a principle that I believe is sound; that is, the right that people should have to know all the ingredients that are in the food and drinks they consume. That is true with regard to food but only to a limited extent at present with regard to alcoholic beverages. Therefore, this very much fills a gap. There certainly is a great need.

I have here a comprehensive feature article on additives which was carried in Chatelaine a while ago. It starts off by saying:

"Food in one sense has never been safer than it is today" -- the article deals with what we drink as well as what we eat -- "thanks in part to additives that preserve and protect it. It has also never been more permeated by chemicals that colour, flavour, bleach and texturize it. Government regulations are stricter now than they were in the past, but many potentially dangerous additives, some of them suspected carcinogens, are permitted. The amounts usually are small, but no one yet knows the cumulative effect of small dosages over a long period. How can we protect ourselves?"

The first paragraph reads:

"Canadians consume an estimated five pounds of chemical food additives per person per year. Hundreds of these additives are still untested and not yet limited under federal food and drug regulations -- or thousands if one includes 2,000 artificial flavours and flavour enhancers which the government does not consider food additives because they are used in infinitesimal amounts."

We do not know what we are consuming in many areas. We did not know what we were consuming in the wines in this province, especially with ethyl carbamate. I was intrigued by these comments on page 101 of the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario:

"Government officials were not informed when unwanted substances were detected, nor were members of the consuming public. When random testing of products already on LCBO shelves gave unsatisfactory results, suppliers were generally advised and requested to take any necessary action. Such products were seldom removed from the shelves unless such action was requested by the suppliers."

That shows a real, conscious failure on the part of the LCBO and the government of that time to ensure that consumers were receiving a safe product.

If there is one thing the royal commission has done, whether much of it is acted on or not, it is that it has highlighted the problem that exists, particularly at this time, with regard to the chemicals that are so prevalent in our society and, of course, so prevalent in the treatment and processing of the food and drink we consume.

Nobody wants to be an alarmist. But while we concede that, by and large, most of what we consume is reasonably safe, we are into this whole area, and into it a long way and it is going to get much worse, of new chemicals that are not tested, whether it is to preserve the food and drink, whether it is to change the colour or whether it is to change the taste. We can include in this not only chemicals but also such things as radiation.

Because of the complexity of the whole issue, people have a right to expect (1) that their government will protect them and (2) that it will be open and will require that all those who produce these products at least let the public know the ingredients in those products. That may not help somebody such as myself very much, but if the ingredients are listed for beverages and foods, it gives an opportunity to the scientists, druggists, chemists and nutritionists in our society, who know what these chemicals are and what the effects of them may be, to organize action to assure us that if there are any harmful chemicals in those drinks or foods, they will be removed.

I conclude by saying that the recommendations in this report of the royal commission, which are fairly substantive as they should be after what was found, are not enough. We must have legislation with regard to alcoholic beverages and regulations with regard to the food we consume that fully disclose all the ingredients in those products. This bill at least goes part way to assure that happens; therefore, I support it and will be voting in favour of it.

10:30

Mr. South: I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea for introducing this very important piece of legislation, which I recommend our party support. However, we have some concerns in regard to it. In looking at Bill 133, we must remember that we address an issue of national scope and that the member is attempting to address a national issue through provincial means.

I submit that it is possibly premature to amend the Liquor Control Act as he suggests. I want to mention that the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Testing and Marketing of Liquor in Ontario, the Osler report, was recently presented to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and distributed to all members of this House.

Mr. Justice Osler recognized in his report the seriousness of public disclosure of information in the public interest. We all have to agree that the lack of proper communication within the Liquor Control Board of Ontario was the main ingredient of what could have been a very serious public health problem.

As a result of the disclosures ultimately made and the involvement of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, a program was negotiated and put in place whereby the task of testing products for ethyl carbamate was divided between the health protection branch and the LCBO's laboratory. The procedure has been tested on more than one occasion, and it appears to be working satisfactorily.

Finally, the report clearly enunciates where the responsibilities lie in this regard. Throughout the commission's hearings, and especially when considering some of the final submissions, it was obvious that effective co-operation between the health authorities, the marketing agencies and the manufacturers of alcoholic products was essential.

The problem posed by the discovery of ethyl carbamate in many products could have been contained, if not solved in very short order, if representative agents of manufacturers in this country and the health protection branch had been advised of the findings at an early stage. The question of acceptable standards could have been addressed if the combined expertise of the health authorities, the winemakers and the distilleries could have been tapped.

It is with this background of the Osler report in mind that we should turn to an examination of the member's bill before us today. First, I would like to point out that after his lengthy and comprehensive investigation, Mr. Justice Osler did not recommend such disclosure. However, submissions were made to him arguing in favour of such measures. This is an important consideration in the discussions here today. This is an issue that must be addressed on a national basis primarily because it is the federal government that enacts national standards under the Food and Drug Act.

Further, because alcoholic beverages are manufactured and distributed on an international-interprovincial basis, it would be chaotic to require different labelling in each province and territory. What is required is consistent standards across our country. It would be a little chaotic and disruptive to have provincial-only labelling.

Clearly, as the Osler report states, there is need for concerted and cohesive action on the part of all liquor boards. This is already happening. The 12 liquor agency chairmen from across the country are meeting to discuss the recommendations of the Osler report. In January, LCBO chairman Jack Ackroyd assumes the position of president of the Canadian Association of Provincial Liquor Commissioners. He is planning to put the issue of disclosure of contents on the commission's first agenda.

The federal government takes the position that such a measure would be national in standard. There has been correspondence between our Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and his federal counterpart.

The problem with my honourable colleague's bill is that it is premature because it precludes the study of proper definitions of some of the ingredients that have to be disclosed. In the world today one of the things that has happened recently is the fantastic advancement in our ability to analyse. Many years ago, when I first became engaged in sanitary engineering, we spoke in terms of parts per million. A part per million is one pound in 100,000 gallons.

Mr. Runciman: Is that what Ed Norton was, a sanitary engineer?

Mr. South: I thank the member for Leeds. We all can visualize a pound. We all can visualize 100,000 gallons; that is five household swimming pools. Thus, for most of us, when we speak in terms of parts per million we have a grasp, a sense, a gut feeling of what it is all about. But very quickly, with the advancement of modem technology, we were talking in terms of parts per billion. That is one thousandth what one part per million is. Then it was parts per trillion, which is one thousandth of that. We are now talking in terms of parts per quadrillion.

Do the members of the House have a sense for that? I am lost, because they tell me a part per quadrillion is one second in 30 million years. That is getting close to infinity; it is getting close to molecular size. Personally, I have lost a sense of its magnitude, a sense of its importance. One of the problems we face, even though we can list these ingredients, is in determining the fineness or the infinite smallness of the material we want to indicate.

My earliest days of imbibing anything alcoholic go back to when I was very young. My father used to make dandelion wine, and one of the features of the preparation of dandelion wine -- I do not know whether it added anything to it -- was that my father had a hole dug in the garage, where the dandelion wine was stored in bottles for a period of time.

Of course, as young children, we were intrigued. We were seeing movies at that time. They did not have talkies then, when we used to go to these movies; they were only a nickel. There were no talkies, but westerns were very much the movies of the day. You would see the saloon scene, and the villain would walk in and swat back a good dose of something or other that was in a glass.

We were trying to re-enact these western scenes as children would do; so into the corner --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. We would have liked to hear the end of the story, but your time has expired.

Mr. Runciman: I am pleased to rise and speak on the private member's bill introduced by my colleague and good friend the member for High Park-Swansea. The member is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. He cares deeply about issues such as this, and he does not hesitate to jump in where others fear to tread.

When we talk about the contents of alcoholic beverages, I am reminded of the story of the Women's Christian Temperance Union having a banquet a number of years ago across the hall from a dinner being held by the distillers' union. Somehow there was a mixup, and the temperance union received the dessert that the distillers' union was supposed to receive. It was a spiked watermelon.

The headwaiter was aware of the error after it had taken place but did not say anything. He waited until the dinner was over and then went to the waiter and said, "Did you have any complaints about the dessert?" He said, "No, I did not, but I did notice that all the ladies were putting the seeds in their pocketbooks."

10:40

That story spells out somewhat my quandary with respect to this issue. There are pros and cons to knowing the ingredients of some of these products. All the members of this House are aware that the Osler royal commission was established to discover why some products found on LCBO shelves across this province had continued to contain unacceptably high levels of ethyl carbamate despite concerns expressed within the board over a period of years.

When the current government was advised of this situation, it felt it had fallen upon a political bonanza. The minister in particular made a number of outrageous and irresponsible comments that, according to many in the Ontario wine industry, did serious damage to their holiday sales during the Christmas-New Year's period, traditionally the best time of year for these companies.

As Osler pointed out, the minister's scare tactics were totally uncalled for. I quote from page 105: "Ethyl carbamate is a known animal carcinogen, but although it is treated as a potential carcinogen for humans, no satisfactory evidence that it actually affects humans is known to exist." The minister jumped out into the hall at the first microphone placed in front of him, as he is wont to do, and started making off-the-cuff comments that inflicted serious damage on our provincial industry.

The government's hopes for political gain were dashed by the results of the inquiry, which found, and I quote from page 101 of the study, "Government officials were not informed when unwanted substances were detected." All that hullabaloo in the hope of embarrassing the previous administration was unfounded.

I want to echo the concerns of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea with respect to the government's inaction to date on the recommendations from Mr. Justice Osler. As the justice indicated, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, as the world's largest purchaser of alcoholic beverages, should be taking the initiative with respect to standards for such beverages. To date, we have not seen any action on that front.

I am prepared to support this bill because I share the concerns of my colleagues and other members of this House. However, I do have some reservations that should be placed on the record.

I have a concern about this type of requirement applying only to Ontario and to imported products. As the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) pointed out, products of other provinces fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the long term, this could have a negative impact on the competitive position of Ontario products. On the other hand, an argument can be made that it might prove to have a positive effect as discriminating buyers may well prefer products that list the ingredients. It is a grey area. We do not know what impact it might have, but it is something that should be looked at closely before the government makes a commitment.

Another concern is that the listing of ingredients will in effect provide the recipe for these products. I am told this could prove to be damaging from a competitive standpoint for the Ontario industry.

In summary, although I have some reservations, I urge members to support this bill. If nothing else, it sends a signal to the government that the concerns arising out of the Osler royal commission require attention now, not two, three or five years from now. I commend the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise to support second reading of Bill 133. I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing forward this bill. I will go a little further; I congratulate him on his conversion. I am not going to get wrapped up in a debate as others have today about standards and questions of science. For me, this bill is a piece of right-to-know legislation, nothing more and nothing less.

As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) said, this does not necessarily protect the health of the people of this province. It allows people to know what they are consuming, what those products contain and, if they wish, to pursue the question of whether they think that is healthy for them. Therefore, it is right-to-know legislation we are dealing with here today.

I remind the member for High Park-Swansea that in April 1982 we debated a private member's bill of mine here in the House, a safe drinking water act. The member's party stood and blocked it; so it never came to a vote. Some years ago we debated a rather comprehensive bill on right-to-know legislation that would have included this and a whole range of other things; again this was blocked by his party. Unfortunately, because I have not looked at the record, I cannot point to whether the member was one of those who stood to block the bill, but his party did, and I did not hear any complaints from him at that time.

I wanted to point out that this is not the first time we have dealt with these kinds of issues and that this Legislature could have resolved this situation a long time ago.

Having said that, I will get back to the positive aspect and the support for this bill today. As the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Welland-Thorold have said, we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of different chemicals are being used in this society on a regular basis. Standards for those chemicals tend to get set at very low levels, and our governments and scientists tend to tell us that at that level there is no possible harm, even over a lifetime, from consumption of that chemical.

On the other hand, everyone readily admits that if small amounts of 50,000 different carcinogens are allowed in the things one consumes and breathes and takes in through the skin, no one knows the effects of the combination of different carcinogens on a human body in the long run.

We have to allow the people in this province and this country to realize the extensive and expanding number of dangerous chemicals they are being exposed to and consuming in some way, even though in small quantities; they are in soap products, in the air they breathe and in the things consumed through their mouth. That is not going to answer all their questions about whether the products they are eating are healthy, but it would enable the public to understand the breadth of the problem that faces us and to start asking the questions the average person is not asking today unless there is some specific local circumstance such as we learned of very recently here in Toronto in the media: the lead in the soil in Riverdale and some areas around there. In general, unless there is some local circumstance such as that which frightens people, questions do not get asked.

When people drink milk or eat canned corn, they do not think about the potential harm of the pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals used in processing that might be contained in those products and that they might be consuming. They do not think about it; so the questions do not get asked.

10:50

This bill starts to address the problem of the public's right to know and its right to ask questions about what it then knows.

The member for Frontenac-Addington talked about uniform standards. Of course, we want uniform standards right across Canada when we actually get to the stage of setting standards for the content of certain chemicals in consumables -- in food products, alcohol products and so on -- but we have not had any action from the federal government.

If Ontario, being the largest market in this country -- it does not matter whether we are talking about food products, alcohol products or whatever -- sets a standard for the labelling of those products, that standard will become the national standard or at least the minimum national standard. The federal government may try to outdo the Ontario government at some point by creating an even stiffer standard, but that is not to the disadvantage of Canadians; it is to the advantage of Canadians.

In the absence of federal standards and federal labelling legislation, I suggest that legislation here in Ontario, because we are the largest market in the country, will ultimately force the issue of labelling of alcohol products right across Canada. It is a small step -- and I want to emphasize that in this bill -- because it deals only with alcohol products.

I have an additional concern -- it is not a criticism of the bill; it is a concern -- and we should think about it. If the member feels the same concern that I do once I have expressed it, he should ask that this bill, if it passes, go to committee of the whole House while we pursue this question. I am concerned with the word "ingredients." I am concerned because it may be a legal loophole. I do not know. I am not a lawyer, and I am not enough into legal hitches to be sure, but the word "ingredients" has always meant to me those things that are put in. With food or alcohol, that would force the manufacturer to identify the pesticides, herbicides or whatever the case may be that are in the drink or food.

My concern is whether the use of the word "ingredients" provides a loophole through which chemicals produced in the process may slip through -- chemicals that are not intentionally added by the manufacturer but are a product of the processing; not just contaminants or byproducts, but products of, in this case, the fermentation or distillation processes. I understand that ethyl carbamate is a product of the fermentation process; it is not an ingredient. That is my concern; it is not a criticism. We should try to answer that question. If this bill is going to be allowed to proceed to third reading, we should answer that question before it receives third reading.

Having said that, I support the bill. It is important that we get on with this question of the right to know in Ontario. It is important that the people who live in this province have the right to know what is in those products and at what level, whether they are consuming alcoholic beverages, food products or any other beverages so that as a society, they can start asking the questions that relate to people's short-term and long-term health. Those questions will never get asked if people do not know what is in the products they are consuming.

M. Shymko: Tout d'abord, je voudrais répondre aux questions du député de Welland-Thorold sur le système de mesures.

Je voudrais indiquer qu'il y a un système de mesures qui existe en Ontario. Ce que je trouve tragique, c'est qu'il y ait 17 éléments, que j'ai lus au début de ma présentation, dans l'introduction de ce projet de loi, qui ne sont régis par aucune mesure, aucun contrôle de la part du gouvernement fédéral. Mais nous, nous avons un système de mesures et un système de contrôles.

Ce système existe. Ce que je trouve tragique, c'est le fait que la vente de ces produits ait augmenté, les profits des producteurs aient augmenté, le revenu pour la province de l'Ontario, pour le trésorier, ait augmenté. La variété de produits contenant des éléments chimiques augmente chaque année et le niveau de danger augmente en plus. Qu'est-ce qui diminue? C'est le nombre des employés qui diminue, en même temps que le standard et la qualité de la vie et de la santé de nos citoyens. C'est ça qui diminue.

Je voudrais vous informer, Monsieur le Président, sur la question du carbamate d'éthyle. C'est un ingrédient, un élément qui est cause du cancer, ce qui a été bien soutenu par des recherches. Vous savez, Monsieur le Président, qu'au cours des derniers cinq ans, plus de 150 produits de bière, d'alcool et de vin auraient été soustraits à la consommation de nos citoyens si les exigences du docteur Karumanchiri avaient été prises au sérieux, il y a cinq ans.

Des milliers de gens ont reçu des doses de cette substance cancérigène -- pas seulement deux fois le niveau permis. Le niveau fédéral a été introduit au mois de décembre 1985. Le maximum est de 400 parties par milliard. Ceci est le maximum, et le minimum est de 30 pour le vin et de 400 pour les liqueurs.

Nous savons que pendant cinq ans, il y a eu, en Ontario, des produits qui ont été vendus, qui ont été bus, alors qu'ils contenaient un niveau de 240 fois le maximum et on ne savait absolument rien à ce sujet-là.

I am disturbed if somehow the remarks of the member for Frontenac-Addington indicate that this bill will be killed on third reading. The liquor lobby is the strongest lobby in this province, and I am fighting a lone battle. I beg the House for support.

I received a call from an individual known as the government relations officer of Hiram Walker yesterday, who said there was no consistency in labelling. I will tell members, Hiram Walker has accepted the standards of Ontario for the contents of its product for all of Canada. For him to say they have a problem because they will have to have one set of labels for Ontario and other sets of labels for the other nine provinces is a cop-out. The labels will be made for their product according to the very strict standards of Ontario, where the federal government has no standards over 17 chemicals. They make sure that the quality of the product has them, and they certainly are consistent; so it is a cop-out.

There are other elements. If we owe anything, it is our responsibility to make the health of our people a foremost priority in this bill.

The Acting Speaker: This ends the debate on ballot item 19.

Mr. Hayes: As I understand it, the House has agreed to proceed with resolution 63 standing in my name and not with resolution 49, of which I have given notice. I therefore ask the House for unanimous consent to proceed with resolution 63.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Our party is willing to give unanimous consent to proceed with this resolution, but we serve notice that our caucus would much prefer that the honourable member follow the time notices set out in the standing orders of the Legislature and serve the proper notice, so that we do have an opportunity properly to prepare our case for the debate.

11:00

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Hayes moved resolution 63: That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that this year and next year the farmers of this province are facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression and it is now estimated that one third of all farmers with Farm Credit Corp. loans are in jeopardy, and recognizing that traditionally Ontario provides substantially less financial assistance to its farmers than other provinces do, the government of Ontario should, through supplementary estimates this fall and the new budget in the spring, increase its overall financial assistance to agricultural producers to at least the average level of the other provinces in Canada.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to thank the other two parties for their co-operation. I realize this is really a last-minute type of resolution. I appreciate the co-operation in allowing me to present this bill here today. I hope I will have the opportunity to give longer notice in the future when I present any other resolutions or bills.

I present this resolution today because it is a must if we are going to meet the needs of farmers today. I realize the problems in the agricultural industry are not just in Ontario but across Canada. However, it is very upsetting that the province in which we live, with agricultural sales of more than $5 billion, is the least supported and is ranked lowest, with 18 cents of assistance provided per dollar of food production.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) will continue to boast about increasing the budget and will continually tell us that the previous government has been underfunding the agricultural budget for years. The farmers in Ontario are tired of those stories. They want to know what the government is going to do, not what the previous government failed to do.

Farmers are very proud and they do not want to depend on subsidies. They do not want so-called handouts from governments. What they want is a fair price for their commodities and their labour, which I will talk about a little later on. What this government has to do immediately is to increase its budget and its overall financial assistance to agricultural producers to at least the average level of other provinces in Canada.

When I ask for support on this resolution, I want everyone to understand that moneys can be made available to use for programs to help farmers on the land, not some of the Band-Aid programs that we have seen that encourage farmers to leave the land. Because of the immediate crisis in agriculture today, it is imperative that we immediately expand and improve some of the existing programs, for example, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the beginning farmer assistance program.

I want to touch on just one issue, namely, the OFFIRR program. I have some reservations about whom it is really supposed to help. I have a case of a farmer in my riding with a family farm. The farm has been in the family since the early 1800s. Today this person applied for the OFFIRR program. From one of the remarks that was made, the reason that individual was turned down was that OFFIRR was targeted to those operations which would be able to provide a family living under normal circumstances. I would like someone in here today to tell me what are normal circumstances today in the agricultural industry.

I have another one where a farmer was turned down because he was working at an off-farm job to try to keep the family farm going. He and his wife were both working. He was turned down because he was told his operation was not a viable operation. This is why I question some of the programs. Some of the programs do good for some people, but I wonder whether it is not another case of encouraging them to leave the farm.

A few years ago, these same farms were viable and could provide a family living. Why are these farms not viable today? Why are they not able to provide a family living today? It is simple. For the last seven or eight years, farmers have been receiving less for their products than it costs to produce them. The bottom line is that farmers have been hit with high interest rates, escalating costs of production and low commodity prices.

Over the years, some farmers were able to build up surpluses and some of them had their farms paid off, but now those people are using up those surpluses and producing food at a loss. They are holding on, hoping the market will turn around. Then there are those who started farming seven to 10 years ago who were not able to build up surpluses. Those people are gone today because of some of the large mortgages and low commodity prices.

This brings me to another point. On the one hand, we have one program to encourage young people to start farming; and on the other hand, we have a program to encourage those already farming to leave the farm, the farmers in transition program, for example. No doubt it has helped some people. What bothers me are those cute little window-dressing phrases such as, "How to land and keep a job." This is a course for which the FIT program will pay tuition.

What we should be saying to farmers is, "You have been producing cheap food for too long and we are going to assist you in getting a fair price for your commodities and your labour." Then the phrase should be, "This is how to keep your land and continue farming."

About 75 to 80 per cent of farm families have off-farm income now, which is used to support the family and subsidize food production. Where are these other jobs that the FIT program is going to train farmers to take? If we want to create jobs, let us boost the agricultural industry and free those farmers from those off-farm jobs, so they can do what they want and know best how to do: that is farm, and farm full-time.

I ask for support on this resolution because of the crisis in the agriculture industry that we are faced with right now. We are in a situation now where we cannot afford not to expand and improve on existing government programs, even though I have to look at these as Band-Aid solutions that help in some cases. However, they do not address the real problem, that is, low commodity prices.

11:10

The real solution to the problem in agriculture today, as I and many farm organizations and consumers see it, is supply management. I know some people are against marketing boards because they feel they restrict the free enterprise system, and there is on the other side the large corporations that lobby politicians. It is quite clear to me what the free enterprisers are looking for now. They are looking to squeeze out the little guy and make the family farm extinct, and they are doing a very good job of it.

The family farm is the backbone of this country. As I mentioned earlier, farmers are proud. They are proud of their land and they love their land, but thousands of them have been discouraged. They have gone bankrupt and have been foreclosed. The stress on family life has been enormous. Wife and child abuse cases abound and suicides are at an all-time high. Because of low prices, farmers have been forced to produce more. Some farmers felt that by doubling their production, they could double their incomes. Land was pushed to its limits and prices became further and further depressed.

I support very strongly the moderate-sized family farm because these people not only take care of the land to make a decent living, but also want to preserve it for future generations. There are some people who think we need larger and fewer farms and they feel that company-owned farms would produce food at a lower cost. If our goal was to produce cheap food, that might be the case. We should take a good look at how large corporations view a natural resource such as agriculture. Look at what has happened in our forest industry. All they did was rape the land for short-term profit.

If we believe in the family farm, then the farmers should receive a decent and adequate income. This has to be done partially by supply management. Some feel that supply management means higher prices. In a free market system, there are times when the product is very cheap and times when it is very expensive. When prices are low, farmers lose money and they go out of business. When the prices are high, others rush in.

With supply management, prices can be stable and farmers can plan their operations. At the same time, they take care of and preserve the land. I would like to give an example. This comes from one of the farm magazines. The title of this little clipping is, "Cereal Sob Story Soggy." It says: "While Canadian millers and bakers have managed to delay a proposed hike in domestic wheat price, cereal prices have shot up 20 to 40 cents. The baker and milling industry has warned that raising the domestic wheat price from $7 to $10 a bushel would raise food prices as far as breakfast cereals go.

"This seems to have happened anyway. Wheat-based cereals such as shredded wheats and brans have jumped sharply. Jim Whitelaw, sales manager for the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, is angry about the increase because the millers, bakers and breakfast cereal makers warned a House of Commons committee that a price increase would put them at a competitive disadvantage with US products and force them to reduce production and lay off staff."

Then he goes on to say that they have gone ahead and done it anyhow. He said the price of a box of one shredded wheat product has increased from $3.19 to $3.60 and the price of one type of bran-based cereal went to $4 a box even though there is less than a nickel's worth of bran in it.

People are afraid that if the farmers get a decent price for their commodities and their labour, they are going to put prices way sky high. This is one little example of the people who are really causing the prices to be high, with the farmers getting nothing in return and no credit for it. Actually, what is happening is that these people can raise their prices by 20 to 40 cents, but the farmer is lucky to get a nickel return for the product.

I would like to stop at this time and give some of the other members an opportunity to speak on the bill. I hope they are supportive of my bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex North reserves the balance, which is four minutes.

Mr. McGuigan: I am happy to participate in this debate this morning on this very important subject. I wish to congratulate the member for withdrawing his original bill and presenting this one today, which I believe speaks more to the problem than the other did. It presents a specific solution to a specific problem. It is one I would like to argue with on some other occasion; because he has mentioned ways perhaps I will touch on it as we go on.

I first want to point out that the record of the Ontario government is not nearly as off base as we would believe if we look at some of the superficial figures. Much is made of the comparison of provincial budget expenditures per farmer. Sometimes Ontario's figure looks a little small, but one has to remember that in Ontario we have a very large number of census farmers. The member mentioned that we have many farmers who are part farmer and part industrial or professional worker. On a commercial farm basis, farms that produce $10,000 or more in gross sales, Ontario performs much better.

As to estimated 1985 provincial government assistance per farm of more than $10,000 in sales, the Alberta figure is $20,243; the Saskatchewan figure, $18,757; the Manitoba figure, $20,489; and the Ontario figure, $18,270. We are not far behind the other provinces.

As important on a program basis, Ontario's assistance is far more effective. There is a much-heralded $2-billion Alberta farm program, but it is not a direct transfer of $2 billion; it is a guarantee on loans of up to $200,000 per farmer, with interest rebates down to nine per cent. The estimated direct Alberta government expenditure on this program in 1986-87 was approximately $40 million. They do not talk about $40 million; they talk about $2 billion in Alberta.

11:20

The enhanced Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program that was recently announced provides interest rebates on loans up to $260,000 and interest down to eight per cent. Estimated provincial government expenditures for 1986-87 are $60 million. That is $40 million more than in Alberta. Over three years this program will transfer $150 million into the pockets of Ontario farmers. Moreover, the program does not have a contingent liability on this province.

Compare this with the Saskatchewan loan program of $25 an acre at six per cent on a per farm basis. A Saskatchewan farmer would have to farm 1,560 acres to receive the same subsidy payment as the OFFIRR rebate that an Ontario farmer receives on $260,000 with interest rates at 11 per cent. As the average Saskatchewan farm is 952 acres, again the Ontario program is a more effective transfer for both the Ontario farmer and the Ontario taxpayer.

Again as an example, in 1985, total government expenditures to Saskatchewan farmers totalled $591.6 million, of which $546.4 million was provided by the federal government; of this, more than $210 million were crop insurance payments. Out of the percentage of 1985 Saskatchewan net farm income, total expenditures were 84.4 per cent, and federal government expenditures were 78 per cent of provincial net farm income.

Similar federal expenditures as a percentage of provincial net farm income for Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario were: 67.6 per cent for Alberta, 28.7 per cent for Manitoba, 18.7 per cent for Quebec and 10.9 per cent for Ontario. By comparison, provincial expenditures as a percentage of provincial net farm income in 1985 were: Quebec, 22.5 per cent; Manitoba, 7.7 per cent; Saskatchewan, 6.5 per cent; Alberta, 16.3 per cent; and Ontario, 12.3 per cent.

One really has to get down and dig into the figures to find out what is the effective level of support between provinces, and Ontario's position is one to be proud of.

Nevertheless, I would support the member in saying that, in this global economic agricultural war that we are in, fighting with the European Community and the United States community, if we are going to preserve our agriculture, we have to put in more money. The Agricultural Institute of Canada just put out a figure yesterday saying that we need to inject $4 billion into Canadian agriculture in order for it to survive.

The real issue becomes not a question of whether we are going to do it, because we will do it; it becomes a question of how we do it. We have to look at what governments around the world have done. It is really because of government involvement, especially in other countries, that we find ourselves in this position. We have to ask ourselves, are we helping farmers or are we hurting farmers when we give them money? In many cases in the past it has been that we have hurt farmers.

In Ontario in the past two years we have taken the position that universal programs hurt farmers. When we pass out money on a universal basis, when we pass it out to those farmers who are rich -- and a lot of farmers are rich and do not owe any money; they operate their farms on their own capital -- it simply gives them money that they can invest in agriculture to increase their production; or as an alternative to go and buy their neighbour's farm.

These universal programs really do not help the persons who need them, in general the young to middle-aged farmers, the persons in the 25 to 40 age group, who in order to farm had to invest in high-priced land. In order to survive in the production race, they had to invest in a lot of heavy equipment and were caught with high interest rates, as has been mentioned. Those are the people who really need the help. Those are the people, for the benefit of the young people in the gallery today, who are going to provide the food for that generation. The older farmers, who are not in debt and who are winding down their operations, passing them on to another generation, are not the people who are going to provide the bulk of the food. It is going to come from that middle group.

We targeted them with the OFFIRR program. We said there are people at the very bottom of the scale, those with hardly any equity at all in their farms who have to pay these high interest rates on the total amount. They simply cannot make it. As much as we would like to help them from a compassionate standpoint, from a practical standpoint we are even hurting those people when we give them money because it would prolong their agony. It would drag on for one or two more years, and they would be getting one or two years older. They are getting that much less able to make the transfer out of agriculture into some other occupation, and we end up hurting those people.

We also take money that would be better spent on the targeted group. Even though the amounts of money we are giving the targeted group are large, we all recognize they are not large enough. The most effective use of that money is by a targeted group. We do not touch the people at the top end of the equity situation because they do not need it. As I mentioned before, universality, which would include those at the top end, works against those in the middle and at the bottom.

This is a very defensible, sensible and economic way of trying our best to help the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Stevenson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the discussion on this resolution. Our party will be supporting the resolution. We are pleased, as was the previous speaker, that the resolution has been changed because I am fairly confident that we could not have supported the resolution as it was originally written.

As we look around the agricultural scene in the world today, in the western world in particular, the developed nations of the world, we see a situation where we have general overproduction in many of those countries and yet the countries that need food are not in a position to afford to buy it. We have the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe and many nations of the world in a position where they cannot market the products they produce well at a price that makes much sense relative to production costs.

There are many reasons for this overproduction, but government involvement in agriculture is one of the significant reasons for overproduction. The best example of that is the situation in the European Community which, in the 1960s, was a major importer of most of the main agricultural commodities needed to feed the people. Largely as a result of government programs it became self-sufficient in the mid-1970s and now produces 20 per cent to 30 per cent more than domestic needs in most of its major agricultural commodities. That has created real problems around the world. They are subsidizing exports to the international marketplace and causing problems for other countries.

11:30

What has been the response to this on the international scene? This January, the United States brought in the Food Security Act, more commonly referred to as the US farm bill. Originally, it was estimated that it would pump something in excess of $50 billion into the US agricultural economy over the next five years, but now the estimate is more than double that. It has caused very serious repercussions in other countries; for example in Canada, Australia, Thailand, New Zealand, Brazil and so on.

Our farmers now are faced with commodity prices that are totally unrealistic when related to the cost of production. They find themselves in a position where they cannot possibly make most of these farms pay, or support their families from the farm operation.

In the summer of 1985 we saw a whole new ball game started in government funding to agriculture. The kickoff was the US farm bill. Some other governments have responded by getting involved in this ball game. In the last budget, the agriculture ministry in Alberta received a 75 per cent increase in funding. Saskatchewan agriculture received a 100 per cent increase in funding in the last budget. I have the budget right here. In Saskatchewan, for example, the increase was by more than $200 million. In Alberta, the budget is for $434 million. The previous year it was for $214 million. That is a 75 per cent increase. The new programs there are very lucrative; in these sorts of things Ontario is just not in the ball game with them.

In contrast to a 75 per cent increase in Alberta and a 100 per cent increase in Saskatchewan, Ontario has a 13 per cent increase in its agricultural budget this year. Two years ago, in 1984, in a budget coming after one of the most serious recessions this province has ever faced, our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), gave the Ministry of Agriculture and Food a 16 per cent increase. Here we have a situation where there is a whole new ball game in funding, Ontario farmers are under a pressure such as we have never seen before and the government responds with a 13 per cent increase.

Does the government have the money? Here is the Ontario budget which was presented by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). Looking down the revenues coming in to this government, and comparing our leader's last budget two years ago with the current one, this government has an inflow of revenues of more than $5 billion more than we had two years ago. That is a revenue increase of 22 per cent because of increased taxes and a current buoyant economy. How many individuals, even members here, have 22 per cent more disposable income in their own personal budgets than they had two years ago? Or how many companies? The government has an economic windfall -- not as a result of anything it has done -- that has given it an inflow of revenue unparalleled by any government before. What is it doing with it?

Personal income tax is up by $1.7 billion. That is not the total. It is up $1,700 million, if members want it in millions instead of billions. I will go down through the whole list. There is corporate income tax, gasoline taxes, which the government pegged at the highest level ever, and on and on. Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits are up at $93 million, and on it goes. Does it have the money? Bloody right it has the money. Where has it gone?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food received an increase of $54 million this year. The Ministry of Correctional Services received an increase of $47 million, almost the same. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities is up by $174 million. The Ministry of Housing is up by $114 million.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is up $54 million at a time when farmers in Ontario are being threatened in a way they have never been threatened before in the history of agriculture in this province. The Agricultural Council of Ontario has said that agriculture needs unprecedented funding. The Ontario Institute of Agrologists came out the day before yesterday and said, "Agriculture needs an influx of $4 billion."

Our party has suggested that this government come up with a family farm security act that would peg stabilization payments at 10 per cent above the current stabilization level to get the revenue into the farmers' hands, and to continue to expand the various interest rate assistance programs that are available to our farmers so they have some money in their pockets to compete with farmers from other jurisdictions. We cannot let our industry die only -- and I repeat -- only because this government is not supporting our agriculture to the same level as are other jurisdictions around the world. In the past year and a half Ontario farmers have fallen further behind those in other jurisdictions than they have ever done in the history of agriculture in this province.

Mr. Swart: I rise to support this resolution with considerable enthusiasm, not just because it comes from my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) but also because of the desperate need for the implementation of what my colleague proposes.

I am somewhat appalled that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not in the House during this debate and at a time when the farmers are in the greatest crisis in which they have ever been. We have here a resolution which says that Ontario farmers should be treated the same as any other farmers in this nation. The minister is so indifferent that he does not even come into the House to listen to or to take part in the debate. I hope he hears this and will be in before the time is up.

It is important that we all, but in particular the Minister of Agriculture and Food, recognize the very serious financial situation that exists in the farming community. Part of the purpose of this resolution is to emphasize that. The simple fact is that the farm communities in this province have not participated in any way, or in any segment, in any recovery that may have taken place from the recession. I am sure those who are close to the farmers will agree with me. The situation of the farmers has continued to worsen while in some segments of the economy in this province it has improved.

11:40

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture documents this in a brief which I am sure all of us who are concerned about agriculture have read. At the very start of the brief, on the second page, it states:

"Agriculture's financial crisis lives on. Reviewing prospects for commodity and financial markets, Agriculture Canada estimated the number of farm operations in financial difficulty would double over the next two years."

It further states, "The proportion of financially stressed farms will hold constant in spite of the substantial exit of farmers from the industry."

What they are saying is that even though a great many of them will go broke and out of business, there will be others who are in jeopardy to take their place and the ones who are in jeopardy will not --

Mr. McGuigan: It is the grain sector that is in trouble.

Mr. Swart: I should not reply to interjections, but the sectors that are in the least financial difficulty are the ones that have supply management and have control over their prices. We know that. I will be saying a word or two about that a little later.

On page 12 of the OFA brief, the statistics are put in stark reality. It is pointed out that in the period 1966 to 1970, the return to the owner and equity in labour per dollar of gross farm income was 28 cents, which dropped to 18 cents in the 1981-85 period. Of course, interest on debt, inputs and other things had gone up very substantially.

What is not in this brief, but has to be regarded as equally serious, is the loss of equity to farmers. The price of farm land in many areas of this province has been cut in half; it has been cut even more than that in some places in eastern Ontario. What has happened is that equity, which to a large extent has been considered the farmers' pension over the years, has been wiped out and they are in a very desperate situation. It even has an impact on the preservation of food land, which is so important to our society.

I am not suggesting, as my colleague the member for Essex North did not suggest, that the fault is wholly attributable to provincial policies or, for that matter, to federal policies. We know that one of the major factors is the international market, with the international prices of grains and so on, but what is true is that the situation of the farmers in this province is worse because both the previous government, and to a substantial degree this government, have been far less supportive of our agricultural producers than other provincial governments in this nation.

The situation is so bad that the OFA devoted almost half of its brief to the matter of the inadequacy of the financial assistance programs in this province. As we know, it pointed out on pages 6 and 8 of the brief that, looking at all the provinces in Canada and government assistance to the agricultural industry province by province, Ontario is the lowest from the point of view of dollars per census farm. If one looks at it from the point of view of the cents per dollar of farm production that comes in government assistance, Ontario is the lowest. If one looks at it from the point of view of government direct payments -- not indirect payments -- to producers as a percentage of cash farm receipts in the selected provinces, which are the five major agricultural producing provinces, Ontario is less than half of any of the others.

Therefore, it is very true that the farmers in this province cannot compete equally with the farmers elsewhere in this nation, because we now have a provincial government that continues a policy of the old one by providing substantially less assistance to the farmers than do the other provincial governments of this nation. That is a deplorable situation.

I was not here all the time the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) was speaking. I am not sure whether he tried to show that these figures are wrong; if he did, I suggest to him the figures are correct. I am sure the member must be aware that the government of Canada, two or three years ago, also put out figures to show this. A wholly different investigation and research project came up with exactly the same conclusion.

One may be able to pick out some minor errors in this -- something may not have been considered -- but basically it is correct that the farmers in this province receive substantially less than those in the other provinces. In fact, they have the worst of all worlds, because although they get substantially less, there is applied against them, as well as against the rest of Canada, the countervailing duties of other nations.

Even though the Ontario farmers -- I was going to use the words "are not guilty," but those are not the words I should use -- even though the farmers here received a subsistence from the government, compared with the other provinces, they pay the same penalty. From that point of view alone, the government of this province ought to increase its assistance to the farmers.

It is a real injustice, and the farmers are very angry. The very first item they had in their brief, under their recommendations, was what my colleague the member for Essex North has in this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to the people of this House that the farm industry in this province must be kept viable, for the sake of the province and not just that of the farmers. It is estimated that there are seven people who hold jobs incidental to every person actually working on the farm. We know what happened to the farm implement industry when the farmers' real income dropped substantially.

The farmers in Ontario deserve at least as good treatment as farmers in the other provinces. Surely no one in this House can vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I remind the member he has up to eight minutes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I too appreciate the opportunity of rising and speaking in support of the resolution that has been presented today by the member for Essex North. The timing of the resolution is fitting as far as the agricultural industry is concerned.

The comments of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) indicated that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not here today. Speaking as parliamentary assistant, I assure him that the minister will be watching this debate and listening closely to the comments that are being made today in this Legislature dealing with such an important item in an industry that is the largest and most important in Ontario.

I point out to members of the third party that the first resolution they brought in indicates they do not understand the agricultural industry in Ontario all that well, because it dealt more at the federal level than at the provincial level. This resolution is more fitting; it deals with responsibilities directly under the control of this Legislature, and we can commend the member for that.

The official opposition has indicated that the government of the day is not supporting agriculture as strongly as it might, and I can agree with those comments to some extent. Certainly, I would like to see more money put into the programs. As I look back to the beginning of my 10 years in the Legislature, I recall that we tried to push the Minister of Agriculture and Food of that day to get more involved. The opposition members can accept some responsibilities for the position the farming community is in at present because of their lack of action going back to those earlier years.

11:50

I recall bringing in a resolution similar to this, I believe in 1984. It suggested we should have eight per cent interest when the interest rate was running as high as 22 per cent. The government of the day sat on its hands and watched the farmers get into the difficulties they are paying for at present.

However, I am not all doom and gloom. Agriculture can and will play an important role for our young people of the future, our young farmers. There is some indication that is happening with the programs that have been put in place. The beginning farmer program was implemented by the now official opposition. I believe 2,340 loans have been applied for. Out of 35,000 full-time farmers in Ontario, that is an indication that they have some confidence in the future of agriculture.

The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program has been a good program, much better than many that were in place over the past many years. We have seen more than 10,000 applications applying to utilize the OFFIRR program, which reduces the interest rate to eight per cent. I believe close to 10,000 have been approved, and it may well be more than 10,000 when the final count is in.

The member for Essex North indicated that some have not been able to qualify for that program. I agree with that. We have had complaints. However, the program was targeted to the full-time farmer and to make sure the average small farmer could stay in the business. Perhaps the program should be reviewed and adjusted. I suggest to the member that when the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food come before the Legislature will be an opportune time for the opposition to have input.

I will quote from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture when it met with cabinet last week:

"The OFA would like to commend the activity of the minister of agriculture and is in obvious support of the Premier, the Treasurer and cabinet for moving quickly on a number of issues important to the farm community. We recognize and support the initiatives the government has taken to date."

They list them, and the list is lengthy. Within the past couple of weeks the government announced a stabilization plan for potato producers, something that should have been put in place some time ago.

I do not want to let the federal government out of its responsibilities. We look at supportive programs in the United States and in the European Community. It is the federal government that has to play the strong role. Our federal government has committed $1 billion to the agricultural industry of Canada. I assure the members of the Legislature that our ministry will be fighting for its share of that money to assist farmers in Ontario.

The Ontario Institute of Agrologists released a report as recently as October 21. I commend it for the work it has done in regard to agriculture. It points out how important is the role the industry plays in our overall economy. It suggests the federal government should put in $4 billion, not $1 billion, to save the industry.

When we are looking at solutions to the problem, we have to be sure we are on solid footing when we subsidize. I think the farmer would rather have the cost of production. Under the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board, the organized milk producers and the chicken producers are not getting the cost of production out of their products, which is what we should be striving to get. In the meantime, for a farmer to pay his debts, he has to have the dollars to do it. With corn on the market at less than $1 a bushel at present -- that is a Depression price -- there is no way he can generate enough money to pay his interest rates, his taxes and the high cost of operating in the agriculture industry.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is certainly aware of the situation, and with the co-operation of this House, he will be trying to stabilize the agriculture industry and make sure it gets the tools to work with, which are the dollars it requires to balance its budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex North reserved four minutes, and I believe that is the amount of time that is remaining. Does the member wish to --

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I support the member for Essex North on his resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Member for Essex North, if you wish to --

Mr. Hayes: Just to show how easy we are to get along with, Mr. Speaker, I will give him one minute.

Mr. Sheppard: Fine. I thank my colleague. In 1984, the Treasurer himself promised that a Liberal administration would double its commitment to agriculture; yet in the 1986 spring budget there was a mere 13.3 per cent increase for agriculture overall.

I listened to the brief of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Tuesday morning, and I thought it was exaggerating a bit when it said the Liberal government had done all these things. It promised a lot of things, but it did not do all the things it was supposed to do.

I support my colleague the member for Essex North, and I hope this House supports this resolution.

Mr. Hayes: I will make a few minor comments. I know the member for Kent-Elgin may dispute some of the figures, and we can play with figures all we want; but the fact is that Ontario gives less money to the farmers than other provinces in Canada do.

I agree with the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) when he says that sometimes the reason we are in this mess today is government involvement. That might be so, but because of government involvement, we must have a little more government involvement today to get us out of this mess.

Anyway, I appreciate the members supporting this motion, and I hope it does carry unanimously.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) mentioned my other resolution and said I did not understand much about agriculture. Perhaps I do not understand as much as some people do, but I am learning very quickly; and it is obvious to me that there are a lot of other politicians around here who do not understand agriculture very well today -- or very well in the past either -- or else we would not be in the mess we are in with agriculture.

I also notice -- without any bitterness, of course -- that the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) has not appeared in the House today. He is a member who was always supposed to be so interested in agriculture for the people in the north. I thought he might have been here today. As a matter of fact, he supported the other resolution I had.

I do not have very much time, but my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has given me a copy of a very interesting article from the Ottawa Citizen. Its headline reads, "Farm Families Buckling under Stress: Divorce, Suicide Rates Climbing in Rural Areas." It is very sad that a lot of this is happening.

One of the comments that was made by a fellow by the name of Mr. O' Brien was: "A farm couple used to have no reason to divorce. They used to get up together, went to the barn together and ate together. They never separated and never met anyone else. But now, for example, she often has to work in the city, and all her money goes to support the farm and she cannot even buy decent clothes for the kids." This is the kind of situation we are in today.

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

Mr. Hayes: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cousens: That was the best speech. He should be in cabinet.

Mr. McClellan: He will be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I might be permitted, because of the confusion that seemed to arise last week at this time, I would like to inform the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) that we are now prepared to vote on these resolutions and bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shymko has moved second reading of Bill 133.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hayes has moved resolution 63.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform all members of the House that today we are very fortunate to have a visiting group of parliamentarians from the Interparliamentary Association Canada-France. Mr. Geng and his colleagues are here. I would like you to join me in welcoming them. Bienvenue.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO TAX

Mr. Sterling: This afternoon this government will ask this Legislature to pass a piece of legislation that will encourage more young people in our province to become addicts of a harmful substance. The Department of National Health and Welfare has reported a dramatic 20 per cent increase in the daily smoking rate of those between 12 and 29 in Ontario in 1986 over the rate in 1985. In other provinces, the rate has dropped by 13 per cent; in each and every province the rate of smoking has dropped among our young people. This is a crisis since we know that 30 to 40 of these young people in this province will die each year in 20 to 30 years from now.

This is a new problem of this Liberal government. When our party was in power, fewer young people took up the habit of smoking each year, as a result of our persistence in keeping the taxation level at a consistent rate with the rate of inflation. Numerous studies have shown that the use of tobacco falls dramatically among our young people when the price of tobacco goes up. I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to amend his bill to raise the tax and put that money aside for our tobacco farmers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I predict that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) will indicate he gave a cooked page 12 in his ministry report on Domtar because the health and safety committee at Domtar wanted time to review the problems identified in the report prepared by Dr. Chong and Dr. Haines.

It should be noted that the union representative on the health and safety committee was told that the plant could be closed if the matter of cleanup was pushed too hard, and the minister was aware of that threat. The union was prepared to discuss matters, but was unaware that Dr. Muir and Normand Pellerin, a director of Domtar, were holding meetings to have the report rewritten.

I would like to quote from Dr. Muir in yesterday's Toronto Star: "Dr. Muir, a long-time consultant to the Workers' Compensation Board, said his goal is to preserve his program's credibility in the eyes of workers and employers, and that means avoiding advocacy on behalf of patients. `I'm not willing to lose that neutral image for myself or by association.'"

By agreeing to rewrite the report without the involvement and knowledge of the union, Dr. Muir was, according to any objective observer, taking the side of the company in this matter. Dr. Muir accepted the initial report based on the scientific analysis. I am told he asked the authors to moderate the tone of the report, not the conclusions. What promoted rewriting? I suspect two threats: a law suit against the ministry, as I am told in a letter, and the possible closing of the plant. This matter has to be investigated thoroughly.

MINISTRY HIRING

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to update the members of the Legislature on the employment practices of the Ministry of Government Services from January 17, 1986, to May 22, 1986. During that period, no new permanent positions were created at the Ministry of Government Services. In fact, 29 fewer positions were funded in the 1986-87 fiscal year than in the previous fiscal year.

The Ministry of Government Services has a staff of close to 3,000 employees. Of the 194 employees hired between January 17, 1986, and May 22, 1986, 75 were classified employees hired to replace staff that had retired or resigned. This is considered a normal turnover rate in a ministry of this size. One hundred and nineteen were unclassified employees hired on a temporary basis to provide short-term assistance to the ministry to ease heavy work loads.

A significant number of these jobs went to students for the summer period as part of the ministry's support of the Ontario government's student employment program.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Cousens: A headline in today's Globe and Mail quotes the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as saying, "Old People Need Less Food Than Others." The elderly of Ontario do not deserve this insult. To begin with, the statement is inaccurate. The elderly tend to need fewer calories but have an even greater need for high-quality, nutritious food. The elderly require more nutritious food, not less food.

The Premier's statement can indicate only one thing: a profound ignorance of the needs of the elderly, not to mention a callous insensitivity to their needs. As chairman of the Progressive Conservative task force on the elderly, I have become more aware of seniors' needs. Take Meals on Wheels, for example. Would the Premier want to reduce helpings? Does he want to categorize and stereotype seniors?

It is wrong to show such a shallow, callous disregard for seniors' needs now when the elderly are looking for new leadership and direction. We will remember the Premier shrugging his shoulders and saying, "They do not eat that much anyway." The Premier should beware when commenting on the eating habits of the populace. We all recall the fate of someone who proclaimed, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche. Let them eat cake."

WISHART LIBRARY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased today to be able to honour a distinguished former member of this Legislature. Today in Sault Ste. Marie, the library of Algoma University College is being officially named the Wishart Library, a fitting tribute to a most distinguished citizen who has served the people of Sault Ste. Marie and the province well for many years.

Born in New Brunswick in 1903, Arthur Wishart got his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1930, practised in Windsor and Blind River, where he became the mayor as well, and then joined a law firm in Sault Ste. Marie in 1939. In 1963, he was elected member of the provincial parliament for Sault Ste. Marie. He entered the cabinet within a year as Attorney General under the John Robarts administration. He served in that senior cabinet portfolio for seven years and is credited with shepherding many important pieces of legislation, including the Legal Aid Act of 1966 and the Law Enforcement Compensation Act of 1967. After retiring from politics in 1971, he also served the province as chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and later of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses.

Arthur Wishart has been a long-time advocate for Algoma University College and has served for many years as a trustee on its governing board. The naming of the Wishart Library today pays fitting tribute to a distinguished citizen of my community and this province.

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

14:10

Mr. Morin: On behalf of the Premier, my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this date 30 years ago, on October 23, 1956. On this date, 3,000 students of the Technological University in Budapest began a peaceful protest for political reform which ended in an uprising to render Hungary free of the shackles of the Stalinist regime for the first time since 1947. The days of glorious freedom were not to last, however; two weeks later, on November 4, Soviet tanks rumbled into Budapest.

Today we cherish the memory of the valiant bravery of the Hungarian men and women who, against overwhelming odds, fought the occupation forces. On behalf of the Ontario government, I would like to pay tribute to the freedom fighters of 1956 and to Hungarians everywhere who lost a battle but won the admiration and respect of freedom-loving people everywhere.

I would like to recognize in the gallery Judge Steven Walters, vice-president of Hungarian Freedom Fighters and vice-president of the Hungarian-Canadian Federation.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that this statement on the anniversary of the Hungarian revolution is not made by a cabinet minister, some of us on this side would like to join in the remarks of the member for Carleton East. I would like to have the leave of the House to allow for that procedure.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly want to co-operate with the honourable member in marking this important event in every way possible. My colleague undertook to use his one minute and a half available during this procedure to bring that to the attention of the House. It seems to me the member for High Park-Swansea has equal access, but I am sure all of us will agree that this is an occasion when any member who wishes to contribute should have an opportunity to do so.

Mr. McClellan: My concern is that the minister who normally makes the statements marking these kinds of anniversaries appears to have given this statement to a private member for the private member to use the time allocated to members' statements to make the statement. I thought we had worked out some way of marking important anniversaries, first with the minister making a statement and then with an opportunity for each of the opposition parties also to recognize the important day. The deviation in the procedure has made things a little awkward.

Mr. Speaker: It appears we are getting into a bit of debate. However, there has been a request by the member for High-Park Swansea. I will have to ask the House what its decision may be.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We will support any reasonable statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that was a 90-second statement. Does the House wish to allow any reasonable statement?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I want to join the member for Carleton East in his remarks on this very important day, important not only to the Hungarian community in Canada and the Hungarian people but to all freedom-loving peoples in the world. This marks the 30th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956.

On that day 30 years ago, thousands of university students in Budapest staged a demonstration of protest against an oppressive Communist regime. What began as a peaceful demonstration turned into a political uprising, leading to a series of political and social reforms moving the country towards democracy. On November 4, 12 days later, the revolution was suppressed when Soviet troops moved into Hungary, foreshadowing what would happen in Czechoslovakia several years later, and a new Communist government was put in place. In the aftermath of the revolution, several political activists were executed, among them, as we all recall, Imre Nagy, the leader of the Hungarian people, and 150,000 refugees fled to the west.

I want to remind the honourable members of the work of all the members of all parties of the Legislature of Ontario in those days when they joined the Honourable John Yaremko and the Honourable Allan Grossman in their efforts to settle these refugees in Canada. The members of this House can therefore all take pride today in the efforts of the then Premier Leslie Frost, who encouraged the federal government to open Canadian borders to 37,000 refugees, and in the work of former members of this Legislature who were involved in this.

Today we all join in remembrance of those who lost their lives as well in the struggle for liberty, human rights and freedom. We also recognize October 23, 1956, as a historic milestone in a fight for the democracy that so many of us have come to take for granted.

Je voudrais conclure mes remarques, en présence des députés de l'Assemblée nationale de la République française, en rappelant, à tous, les principes sur lesquels fut fondée la République française, suivant la Révolution française. Ce sont les principes de liberté, d'égalité et de fraternité, principes de l'esprit humain qui donneront force à l'espoir et à la foi qu'un jour le peuple hongrois, autant que les peuples qui sont soumis à des régimes totalitaires, jouiront de la liberté politique, sociale et économique dont nous jouissons ici, au Canada, et dans le monde libre.

Mr. Laughren: Thirty years ago today, the Hungarian people expressed their profound unhappiness with their totalitarian government, and the Hungarian revolution began.

The Hungarian people were and are a courageous people. They wanted nothing more than the basic rights to which all freedom-loving people aspire. The Hungarian people were crushed and thousands were killed by Soviet forces armed to the teeth. The Soviet Union will, I suspect, never be able to erase from people's minds that picture of massive Russian tanks lumbering through the streets of Hungarian cities.

The revolution failed, but many thousands of Hungarian people left their homeland and emigrated to countries around the world. Canada was fortunate in having many of them choose this country as their new home. They have contributed mightily to Canadian life, and while they and their children are now committed Canadian citizens, the fires of Hungarian nationalism burn fiercely in their hearts.

I and my fellow New Democrats join with others in this assembly in remembering with sadness that day 30 years ago. We also pay tribute to the courage of the Hungarian people and assure them that we shall not forget either their courage or their cause.

Mr. Newman: I would like to read into the record the words of Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty in a statement made on October 23 quite a few years ago:

"There is no country which in the course of its thousands of years of history has suffered more than have the Hungarians. They have had to wage incessant struggles for their independence, mostly in defence of the western countries. These struggles interrupted the continuity of our development, and we have had to rise again by our own efforts.

"In the course of history, this is the first occasion that Hungary has enjoyed the sympathy of all civilized nations. We are deeply moved by this, and every member of our small nation is joyous in his heart that because of our love for liberty, the nations have taken up its cause."

ARTS FUNDING

Ms. Fish: The Minister for Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) will be supporting a deficit write-down to Stratford and other theatres that are running deficits.

The minister's attempt to support the arts is transparent for several reasons. In the course of providing the resources, she completely bypasses the Ontario Arts Council, which clearly should be making the decisions about which organizations should receive what form of funding and when.

It is worthy of note that a few short years ago, when other deficit write-down payments were required for those same theatre groups, the decision on the amount and the timing of any such payments was made entirely by the arts council. It was the arts council that was funded and asked to take those decisions. The council serves at arm's length from the minister and from the ministry and works on behalf of arts groups.

The real question is what resources will be provided for those like Shaw and others that have lived within fiscal restraint and not run deficits.

Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to your attention the fact that the privileges of all the members of this House were abused today -- in fact, this afternoon -- when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced on CBC Radio the sale of the world-class recreational convention centre at Minaki Lodge. Surely he should have had the common decency to make this announcement in this House, because that is the way we do business here. This is the democratic way of doing business. He should be called before the bar of the House to explain.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully, and I believe similar matters have been mentioned and brought up in this legislative chamber. As I recall, they have never been considered a point of privilege. However, I note your point of information.

14:22

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yesterday, certain allegations were made by my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) regarding a report prepared by the McMaster occupational health clinic on the potential risk of cancer in certain Domtar workers because of exposure to coal tar pitch volatiles. I wish to remind my honourable friend that the report in question was commissioned by the two work place parties. The Ministry of Labour did not commission or arrange for the report.

In his presentation, the member made very specific assertions. His allegations of deliberate impropriety and unethical conduct in the preparation of this health report are a very serious matter. I view them with the utmost gravity.

As my friend is undoubtedly aware, this very issue has been brought to the attention of John Laskin. It is one of the nearly 70 cases he is investigating and upon which he will render his judgement as part of the independent, external review which he, along with Geoff McKenzie, has been instructed to undertake into the operation of the occupational health and safety division. To intervene at this time would compromise and prejudice the result of Mr. Laskin's thorough review on this matter. I would not want to do that, nor would the member wish me to do that.

However, my friend's allegations raise a more general issue. It is my view that one of the critical functions of government is to create an environment in which work place problems can be identified and resolved by those most directly affected. The Occupational Health and Safety Act provides the mechanism to achieve this goal. The internal responsibility system, of which the joint health and safety committee is an integral part, is fundamental to the functioning of the act. The internal responsibility system is predicated upon mutual responsibility for a safe, healthy work place that both parties share.

In this instance, neither of the work place parties expressed any reservations or doubts to me about the final report that was presented to the parties in April 1987. It is not up to the minister or his officials to go behind the concurrence, ostensible or otherwise, of the parties to a report prepared on their behalf, a copy of which is submitted to the ministry.

When coal tar pitch volatiles at Domtar became a public issue in the summer of 1985, I spoke to the local union leadership about releasing the report's findings. At that time, I was told in the strongest of terms not to intervene. The union urged me to leave all matters to the joint health and safety committee for resolution.

At no time prior to yesterday did the union express any disagreement to me or my officials with the contents of the medical report. For that matter, prior to yesterday, at no time did any of the examining physicians ever express to me or my officials disagreement with the contents of the medical report. If either of the work place parties had reservations over the contents of the report, it was their right -- indeed, it was their obligation -- to communicate those reservations to me or my officials.

With regard to the broader issue of health and safety in this province over the past 17 months, there is no area of my portfolio to which I have devoted greater energy. It is because of this government's unrelenting and unwavering commitment to health and safety that we have fostered a climate in which the work place parties now feel they can come forward with their concerns. Such constructive developments can only assist this government's resolve to develop the best occupational health and safety system in North America.

Mr. Gillies: The statement made by the Minister of Labour is a very serious matter. For the minister to fail to respond directly to the charges made by the member for Sudbury East is unacceptable and represents a dereliction of duty.

It is bad enough that the minister has had to launch an inquiry into the operations of the occupational health and safety branch of his own ministry, but it is doubly unacceptable that the minister then hides behind the inquiry whenever serious allegations in this area are raised in the House.

It is a very simple matter, as I understand it. The minister and his staff would have the capacity to determine whether it was medical report 1 or medical report 2, or whether it is 15 or 45 employees whose health is being adversely affected by the coal tar pitch. If the hundreds of employees of the ministry are not able to advise the minister on that, then there really is something wrong.

Mr. Martel: I cannot believe the response of the Minister of Labour. It is as usual. Can the minister tell me why I received a doctored report? He did not answer that. He did not answer why the report I received was different from that which went out. Why were the results of the survey not in the report I received? There are two reports there.

There are also two reports by McMaster: the one that was commissioned and the one that Muir rewrote. The minister has not answered that.

Muir rewrote the second report; he did not test one of the workers. According to yesterday's Toronto Star, he said the two doctors agreed with the findings. That is not true. The two doctors are Chong and Haines; they did not agree, and they would not sign the second report. Why in God's name did the minister accept a second report from those birds? There are 45 workers ill. He confuses the two reports. He makes it appear as though there are not two different reports. Why did he accept a second medical report that did not look at one of the workers?

To suggest that Laskin can get to the bottom of this issue is irresponsible on the minister's part, because Laskin cannot subpoena. He can go around and question a bit. The minister's friend Ham is looking into this in discussions with Muir. He has funded Muir and his outfit to the tune of $300,000 a year. He is redoing reports, and the minister wants the internal responsibility system to work in conjunction with the company and with the union not even aware that it is going on.

The minister cannot hide behind this one any more. He is going to have to order a full public inquiry with the right to subpoena to get to the bottom of it. Nothing else will do.

MINAKI LODGE

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I wish to report on the progress this government is making to comply with the unanimous all-party recommendations of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions with regard to Minaki Lodge.

In January 1986, the committee recommended "that the government not undertake major capital expenditures at Minaki" and that "the board of directors of Minaki Lodge Resort Ltd. make every effort to sell the company." The committee also recognized that the government of Ontario's capital investment could not form part of the purchase price.

Members of the committee further stated that "the Ontario government should not be in the hotel business." This was in recognition of the fact that, since the province acquired the lodge in 1974, the taxpayers of the province have absorbed operating and capital expenditures of approximately $33 million.

Accordingly, I am pleased to inform members that we have agreed in principle to sell Minaki Lodge to Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. Final negotiations are continuing, and a fully documented agreement with Four Seasons is expected to be signed shortly. At that time I will make the agreement public, together with all related information, including the process that led to its completion. The chairman and members of the board of directors of Minaki Lodge have fully supported this decision.

On the basis of the most recent estimates, the lodge as currently operated will not cover provincial costs for the foreseeable future. It would require an estimated additional investment by the province of approximately $2 million to meet operating and maintenance requirements for the next five years. Four Seasons has indicated its intention to operate the lodge through a management agreement with the Elgin Group of Port Caning, which specializes in resort management.

Four Seasons is a purchaser of experience and stature. It is a Canadian company that manages 20 luxury hotels throughout Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Four Seasons and the Elgin Group are committed to maintaining the facility as a five-star destination resort hotel. We are persuaded that a sale at this time to this quality purchaser will be in the best short- and long-term interests of the taxpayers of Ontario and that Minaki Lodge will continue to provide important economic benefits to the tourism industry in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Bernier: I stand in response to the announcement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation with respect to the sale of Minaki Lodge and to reiterate my disgust and condemnation of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for making the announcement on CBC Radio this afternoon.

I point out that the minister's statement is a very simple one. It has no details. It is an exact copy of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. exercise, where it plays down the cost of a facility and then goes on to continue negotiations. The government embarrasses itself and the taxpayers of this province. I point out to the minister that while the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions did recommend that Minaki be sold, it did not recommend that it should be given away.

As a member of the previous administration, which was involved with Minaki Lodge, I want to make it abundantly clear that we make no apologies for that public expenditure, none at all. It created 200 jobs. It brought $7 million into the economy of northwestern Ontario. It is the tourist mecca of that area, and the minister knows it.

Minaki Lodge has operated for a mere three years. It is truly the tourism success story of this decade; there is no question about it. This is proved by the fact that there were some 30 buyers on the long list wanting to purchase Minaki Lodge. The fact that Four Seasons, a Canadian company, was anxious to buy and operate Minaki Lodge is a true indication that it was a good investment for the people of this province.

ARTS FUNDING

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am pleased to rise today and announce a special one-time funding plan to ensure the long-term economic viability of Ontario's arts organizations. As far as the arts are concerned, our government's role is supportive. We work to remove obstacles and provide the environment for artists to thrive and imagination to flourish.

My ministry, through such programs as Investment in the Arts, encourages arts organizations to work towards self-sufficiency by raising funds from new sources in the private and corporate communities. Unfortunately, some groups are suffering from severe economic strain caused by substantial accumulated deficits.

One gains a real appreciation of the problem when one realizes that of the approximately 200 arts organizations with budgets greater than $75,000, about 75 have deficits greater than five per cent of their total budget; 24 have deficits greater than 20 per cent. There are many reasons for these deficits. In most cases, total revenues have simply not kept pace with inflation, forcing groups to either cut back in programming or incur a deficit.

In addition, precarious financial situations make organizations particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the marketplace. No cushion is in place to cover periodic shortfalls in earned revenue or money from fund-raising campaigns. This was evident during our recent recessionary period.

Often, arts organizations are not the only ones affected. In some cases, an arts organization is a major economic as well as social force in the community. The financial destabilization of such an organization has a very serious impact on the community in which it exists. This is especially true in small, medium-sized and northern communities such as Stratford and Thunder Bay.

Today, I am announcing a total of $2.5 million in financial stabilization grants, which will go to a number of arts organizations across Ontario to help reduce their deficits. These one-time-only grants will include $1 million to the Stratford Festival and $500,000 to the Grand Theatre in London. Also included will be grants to other arts organizations with severe accumulated deficits.

Eligible organizations and grant amounts will be determined through a review of 1985-86 audited financial statements. These groups are clients of either my ministry or the Ontario Arts Council and have budgets in excess of $75,000.

This money will be distributed by March 31, the end of the 1986-87 fiscal year.

My ministry intends that these financial stabilization grants will help maintain the integrity of endowment funds established by arts organizations through our Investment in the Arts program. In this program, my ministry matches one dollar for every dollar raised by the organization above its fund-raising base. If the dollar comes from a new corporate donor, we will match it two for one.

We consider Investment in the Arts to be the province's most effective means of addressing the arts community's endowment needs. Endowment funds are one of the best ways to address the long-term funding requirements of arts organizations. Their effectiveness can be maximized, however, only if the arts organization has a stable financial base in place, free from the pressures of excessive deficits. The financial stabilization grants announced today will allow new money to be more fully devoted to endowments.

In closing, this government is committed to the cultural, social and economic development of this province, and we consider the arts an important part of life in Ontario. Through these grants, I know these organizations will enrich our lives for many years to come.

Mrs. Marland: I find the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture to be very interesting. It talks about this being a one-time-only grant to Stratford. She does not choose to tell the House that there has already been a previous deficit stabilization grant to Stratford, which was handled properly through the Ontario Arts Council, and which kept at credit the fact that the council operates at arm's length and is independent of the government. This whole process announced today will put at risk the entire arts community in terms of the confidence it has in grant funding from the government.

One other thing I find very ironical is that in her statement, the minister says the government considers investment in the arts to be the province's most effective means of addressing the arts community's funding needs. How interesting that is, following immediately on the heels of yesterday, when in this same Legislature the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) refused to withdraw Bill 38 on the lottery funding, which provides at least some security for the arts community in this province, and Bill 26, which again attacks the arts community through the 10 per cent amusement tax exemption.

Mr. Allen: In response to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with regard to funding because of the instability of many of our arts organizations in the province, while this party supports additional moneys for the working artists and arts organizations of this province, we reject the method by which this is being done. It abuses the arm's-length policy that the Macaulay commission underlined as necessary in this field. The fundamental reason it is possible to do it in this way, and why it is sometimes necessary, is that the ministry still has not reached the objective of that commission and established national average levels of funding for the performing arts in this province.

That makes it possible for the minister to dangle those arts groups on a political patronage basis and to put organizations such as the Grand Theatre of London, which is a very respectable and eminent organization, in the invidious position of appearing to receive political patronage from the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It is an unfortunate development. Why does the minister not give the money to the Ontario Arts Council, do it at arm's length and get out of all this nonsense?

GAS UTILITIES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: During the past two years, control of each of Ontario's three major gas utilities has changed hands. As a result, most of our gas utilities are members of extended corporate families.

The utilities have affiliates which produce oil and gas, and some subsidiaries conduct activities that are far removed from the gas distribution business. Changes in the control of our gas utilities can now occur at the holding company level rather than at the level of the utility itself. A recent example of this is the takeover by Gulf Canada of Hiram Walker Resources, the parent of Consumers' Gas.

In short, utility regulation has become more complicated as utilities and their owners have sought opportunities for diversifying their interests.

Diversification is an ordinary and necessary aspect of private sector business. Our natural gas distribution system in Ontario is mature, and our utilities will require smaller amounts of capital for system expansion. It is natural for these companies to seek opportunities to diversify. However, the government must ensure that customers and the utilities themselves are not exposed to unnecessary and undesirable risks, particularly when companies are investing their earnings in peripheral or nonutility businesses.

With this in mind, on April 9, 1986, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) announced the government's intent to bring forward legislation to strengthen those parts of the Ontario Energy Board Act governing control and ownership of utilities.

Consistent with previously expressed concerns, the new legislation would introduce rules of conduct designed to further ensure that the public interest in natural gas price, service and reliability is protected. Using this picket-fence approach assures protection of the public interest, regardless of who owns or controls the utility.

In fulfilment of this commitment, I propose to introduce legislation later this afternoon to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act. These amendments will insulate gas utilities from the risks associated with nonutility activities.

The amendments will require nonutility investments as of April 9, 1986, and later, to be carried out in separate, nonsubsidiary corporations; require full disclosure of all transactions between utilities and their affiliates, to ensure fair market pricing for such transactions; require a majority of the directors of a utility to be independent of the utility's affiliates; and forbid a utility to advance funds to or guarantee the obligations of an affiliate.

Exemptions from the application of the first and last of these provisions will be available only with the approval of the Ontario Energy Board. No other exemptions are provided for.

In other words, we are encouraging the gas utilities to remain as utilities, not only to simplify the increasingly complex process of regulation but also to ensure maximum protection of the public interest with respect to the provision of utility services.

Changes in the direct ownership of gas utilities will continue to be subject to review by the Ontario Energy Board and to the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. However, the review and approval process has been strengthened in two very important ways.

First, the amendments provide the Ontario Energy Board with specific criteria in reviewing applications for approval; these include the potential for non-arm's-length transactions, diversion of utility resources to nonutility businesses and the likely impact on the cost and quality of service.

Second, provisions have been made whereby the Ontario Energy Board or the Lieutenant Governor in Council may attach terms and conditions to the approval of a nonutility investment or a change of direct ownership. Such terms and conditions will be legally binding on the applicant.

I might add that it is not the intention of this government to allow any exemptions from the requirement for a public hearing into a change of control of a gas utility. On the other hand, the Ontario Energy Board would have the authority to dispense with a hearing. First, the board must give public notice that, in its view, a hearing may not be necessary. After any submissions from the public have been received and considered, the board may then determine that a hearing is not needed.

In summary, the proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act, by prescribing a code of utility conduct, will protect the public interest in natural gas prices, service and reliability, regardless of who owns, controls or operates a gas utility. It will also permit maximum ease of transfer of utility shares, consistent with the protection of the public interest.

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy this afternoon on control of gas utilities. It is two years since my leader, my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and several other members of this caucus held a press conference dealing with this issue. The minister should be ashamed to have stood up here this afternoon and set out for us new legislation that will create exactly the same problems we tried to express two years ago to the then government.

The minister obviously does not understand the nature of the problem in terms of controlling the gas utilities and the funds in gas utilities. The exemption process in the existing legislation created the problem, not the legislation itself. The minister has turned around and set out four criteria, only two of which have teeth in them. Then we are told those are the two criteria that can be exempted by a hearing. A piece of legislation is being created with an identical flaw to the one in the legislation that is being replaced, and the system will not change one iota.

CONSUMER WEEK

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the members of the House that October 25 to 31 is Consumer Week in Canada. In honour of this week, I am pleased to join with the Ontario branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada in proclaiming Consumer Week in Ontario.

In proclaiming Consumer Week, I would like to state that this province is fully committed to protecting the rights of Ontario consumers, and we have impressive and effective legislation to ensure those rights.

Consumer Week activities provide an opportunity for us all to become more aware of the important role played by well-informed consumers in Ontario's marketplace. It is also an opportunity to recognize the work of the Consumers' Association and, indeed, of all agencies that promote consumer education and awareness.

In proclaiming Consumer Week 1986, we encourage Ontarians to reflect on the benefits enjoyed by both business and consumers in a fair and equitable environment. My ministry is undertaking several activities in honour of Consumer Week, including the distribution of information and educational material throughout the province, and we are working in conjunction with the Consumers' Association of Canada to further promote consumer awareness through poster campaigns and library displays.

As part of our celebration, I am pleased to provide all members of the House with a copy of our 1987-88 consumer tips calendar. These will be delivered to the members' offices today.

Mr. Runciman: I commend the minister -- I do not do this frequently -- for Consumer Week. It is an excellent move, and I encourage him. I hope he has not brought in the member for York South (Mr. Rae) to select the calendars for the week. The member is well known, as we all are aware, in terms of pricing calendars. I would hate to see that occur. In any event, my congratulations to the minister.

14:51

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Ms. Fish: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Scott), who is the minister responsible for women's issues, I will direct my question to the government House leader.

We note that once again we have been treated to a full and complete report in the news media of the government's intentions on policy prior to a statement or anything being tabled in this House.

Can the government House leader confirm that it is the government's intention to bring in a purported pay equity bill for the private sector that will have the effect of eliminating from pay equity some 68 per cent of all the private firms in this province and that because a gender predominance requirement will remove from the protection of pay equity those women in the social sciences, where there are only 52 per cent women; in teaching, where there are 59 per cent women; in sales, where it is 40 per cent women; and those in recreational occupations, where it is 39 per cent and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will know that the pay equity bill for the public sector is currently being considered in committee.

The Attorney General, the minister responsible for women's issues, has said, I believe in the House but certainly publicly, that he hopes to introduce a bill for the private sector before the end of the calendar year. My own hope is that it will come in November. Whether the House chooses to proceed with putting both bills in committee or how it wants to deal with them is to be decided by the government and by the House itself.

I can assure the member who asked the question that when the bill is made public, she will see that it treats women in a fair and equitable manner, in a most progressive manner indeed. We hope that when the bill is introduced, it will receive support on all sides.

Mr. Gillies: Does the government House leader not see that if this leaked report is accurate, the government is making a farce of not only its election promise but also the work that is being done in the standing committee on administration of justice? Will he not agree that it is clear that it is going to put the broad public sector into a toothless bill that will not take effect until the 1990s? Will the minister confirm that it is obvious the government strategy is that once the opposition parties have finished amending Bill 105, it will be withdrawn?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable member is referring to the Goldstein column in the Toronto Sun. I am not in a position to say how accurate it is. I know he is a very good reporter and would not knowingly put forward anything that was in any way misrepresentative. I am not in a position to say whether it accurately reflects the provisions of the bill.

I do know that the bill is being worked on by a number of ministers and a number of people in at least two ministries. From time to time it will be reviewed by cabinet committee. The honourable member, from his own experience, knows that is true.

We are not close to introducing it as yet. I am sure the member will find, when it does receive the approval of cabinet and my colleagues' caucus and is introduced for his consideration, that it will represent fairness, justice and equity, as I have already indicated.

Ms. Fish: I find it incredible that the government House leader is unable to confirm the report that is in the Toronto Sun. We were able to confirm it with very little problem and find ourselves now in receipt of a copy that we believe must have formed the basis of the article. The copy will show, and I ask the government House leader to confirm, that the format that would provide and require comparisons to occur only within one establishment will mean that child care workers and health care workers, predominantly 92 per cent and 98 per cent women, respectively, will be totally excluded from this sham the government intends to introduce.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I hate to see the honourable member work herself up into such a frenzy of outrage over some report in the morning press. She may have also received a copy of a document from some source, but I can assure the House that the member, who has had extensive experience in the ministry herself, must be aware the legislation is not nearly ready for presentation. I expect it will not be put into the House for at least a month or perhaps two months

Mr. Gillies: Sure. It is ready right here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The legislation is not ready for presentation, not nearly ready. It is being reviewed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and others, and these matters will result in legislation that we will be honoured and delighted to present to the House when we are ready.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Harris: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, now that we have our first casualty of the softwood lumber fiasco, the decision handed down last week.

A story in today's Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal states: "Northern Wood Preservers and Great West Timber will be laying off 100 workers on November 3 unless their US customers absorb the 15 per cent increase." The minister knows this will be devastating to the region. He knows this is a region that has been hit by massive layoffs and a general economic slowdown already.

It was the minister's ineptness and mismanagement that caused this ridiculous ruling. What is he going to do now to assist the 100 workers of Northern Wood Preservers and Great West Timber in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the honourable member is aware, the layoffs have indeed resulted because of the 15 per cent tax that was put on. Of course, as we have stated in the House during the past couple of days, we will work very closely with the federal government, the other provinces and the industry to push this case ahead as quickly as we can and see that we win it.

Mr. Harris: In the meantime, the minister will do nothing for the 100 workers. Other protectionist measures are being considered by the US at this time that he surely knows will have severe repercussions on industry in Ontario. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) showed his lack of knowledge on these issues when he was asked a question on Tuesday about the Heinz-Murtha bill. For the minister's information, so he can rest a little easier for a day, it has died on the order paper -- for now; that is the status of the bill.

The bill proposes to place quotas on steel imports and to limit Canada to 2.4 per cent of the US market. Canada currently has 3.3 per cent; so it is about a 33.3 per cent reduction of that market share. The minister knows this will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. He knows it will result in significant job losses in Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton. We know the Premier did not even know about it. What action has the minister taken to try to prevent this bill from becoming law?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, on a --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait. If you want to waste the time of many of the members, that is fine with me. I will wait.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, to clear up a little point for the member and for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), it is not the Heinz-Murtha bill. Those are two separate bills. Senator Heinz introduced one of the bills in the Senate, and the other was introduced by Mr. Murtha in the House of Representatives. Thus, it is not one bill; there are two bills, and they did indeed die on the order paper. We feel that Ontario especially is a very fair trader in the steel industry, and we hope it will not affect the steel industry.

15:00

Mr. Harris: Some people have said this move will probably spell the end for a number of workers in the steel industry.

Those two gentlemen working together introduced the bill simultaneously. That is how it works in the United States. It is a joint activity. If the minister understood how things worked in the United States, he would know that is the way one puts forward a bill in the two Houses. He still does not seem to understand how things operate in the US.

The US has passed a law that will put in place new standards for licensing commercial bus and truck drivers. Canadian firms which haul goods to the United States, more than 600 of them, will be affected by the changes through the cost of putting drivers through new licensing procedures, which the minister knows, or should know, will be costly and complicated. Kenneth Maclaren, executive director of the Canadian Trucking Association, has said this move will probably spell the end for a number of Canadian operators. I would like to know whether the minister was aware and, if he was aware, what action was taken by him to prevent these changes from impacting in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This is just one in a series of several things that have been of great concern to the government and all members of the House, not only the steel that the member talks about, not only the licensing, not only the lumber, but also the surtax. There has been a lot of activity in the United States because of the elections coming up. A lot of these bills have died on the order paper. We hope the United States, the House of Representatives and Senate, will have good sense and will not reintroduce those bills.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Why do you not ask a question if you want to talk?

Mr. Gillies: Maybe you can ask him that.

Mr. Speaker: Is there anything wrong with the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) or the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies)?

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I wanted to ask the Premier personally some questions about the level of care being provided to our senior citizens in nursing homes and about his comment yesterday that older people need less food than other people, which he apparently made in the scrum outside the Legislature in response to certain questions.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health, given the fact that even the municipally run homes for the aged in Metropolitan Toronto spend upward of $3.85 per day per resident -- and that is moving to $4 in January -- is it the official position of the government or is it the position of any member of the government that older people who live in nursing homes somehow need less food than older people who live in homes for the aged?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think one of the things the honourable gentleman would want to do, and we are doing this now, is to compare what the numbers being quoted represent in terms of costs to the facilities. It seems to me we must be aware of whether one number is representative of the total complement of services rolled into the expense of providing service. I am looking into those comparative numbers so that I can advise people more fully later on.

I presume the honourable member has in his hand today a copy of the article which appeared in one of the local newspapers. It indicated, for instance, that in some facilities special diets are ordered and received, which obviously adds to the cost of service provided for individuals in those institutions, particularly when it comes to hospitals. It seems to me that we need to examine the components of each of those numbers quoted, which we will do.

I can tell the member that, no matter what has been said, all of us on this side of the House, as, I am sure, all of us here in this House, are committed to ensuring good quality of care in our institutions for seniors, and not only for seniors but for all people in our institutions.

Mr. Rae: Let the record show that in response to this report two things happened. First, the Minister of Health suppressed it for six months and did nothing about any of its major recommendations, not a thing. Second, the Premier went outside this House and made a fatuous remark about the needs of older people and the kind of food they ought to be able to eat in an institution in Ontario. Those are two things this government has done, and now the minister stands up and justifies what his own complaints committee says cannot be justified.

The Crittenden report says: "The most frequent type of complaints received during our informal visits were concerned with meals. Repeatedly, residents complained that food is unappetizing, served poorly and cold, and presented in an unfriendly, hurried way. Indeed, the committee agrees. Mealtime in nursing homes does leave much to be desired. Yet, according to many residents, mealtime is the highlight of the day."

The report then goes on to document the dollar figures and says that nobody, no matter how much bulk buying is done, can possibly feed people adequately on $2.10 a day. Given those facts, why did the minister suppress this report for six months?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did not suppress the report for six months. The member knows when he quotes $2.10, that was one facility about which the committee reported. I understand there is an interview with one of the members of that committee in the newspaper today, and he said he was happy to report that there was a good quality of service in the homes. Lest there be some concern that we do not monitor and take into consideration the menus and nutrition provided, each home has a nutritionist, and we inspect and look at the food that is served.

That does not mean there are not variations in standards, and we look at those very quickly. I will be very interested in the examples the member wants to provide to me, so we can check the system. That is the way our system performs at this time. We check and look at the complaints received. This report is useful for all of us. It highlights for many of us the need to examine the manner in which our system operates, so we can make it better.

Mr. Rae: If the report was so useful to the province, why did the minister keep it a secret for six months? Why did he suppress it within his own ministry? Why did he not make it public? If so much good is going on, why did even this committee appointed by the Conservatives make nine specific recommendations with respect to meals, on which the ministry has not acted?

The Premier made the fatuous and quite disgraceful comment that the dietary needs of older people are somehow less than those of other people in our society. Most people in this House will reject completely and utterly that comment being made about the needs of older people.

One of the key recommendations of the report is that developmentally handicapped people should not be kept in private nursing homes, but more than 2,000 still are. The report is very critical of the programs there and says this group is not receiving the same stimulation and programming in a nursing home that it should be receiving.

What does the minister intend to do about the needs of the developmentally handicapped who are still in private nursing homes? Will he do anything for them? Is it the position of the government that developmentally handicapped people have less dietary needs than others?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems to me the honourable gentleman likes to ask questions and then answer them for himself, attributing to me statements that were not made. I did not condone $2.10; I do not condone any number. This gentleman never heard me say that. We are concerned when reports like that indicate that there is a low level of support for the people in nursing homes. That is the essence of that report, and we are concerned that the quality of life in these homes be elevated.

With respect to the primary part of the member's supplementary question, the fact that there are developmentally handicapped people in the nursing home system has been a concern for as long as I have been here and even predated our move into the role of government. My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and I have met often to make moves that will do a great deal to improve the programming provided for those individuals. I recognize, as everybody does, that these people need better programming. We are committed to ensuring that better programming be provided for people who now find themselves in those facilities.

15:10

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. So he can focus, it has to do with the question of equal pay.

Can the Treasurer explain the bizarre congruence, the overlap, if you will, between the recommendation of the National Citizens' Coalition on May 15, 1986, which recommended that the government announce a five-year moratorium on the implementation of pay discrimination in Ontario's private sector, and the report of the cabinet document that we saw in today's Toronto Sun, which indicated that the private sector would not be expected to comply by law or by means of any kind of enforcement mechanism until the beginning of the 1990s?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member should not confuse what he receives in a brown envelope or even what he reads in the Toronto Sun with government policy.

Mr. Davis: What about the Star?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a different matter. The policy has been under constant review since we first envisaged the concept of pay equity many years ago and we have been developing this, as the member will know. We think our policy will be as good or better than in any other jurisdiction that has moved in the pay equity field.

We are not ready to present it to the House, and we have not indicated that we would, for another month. A good deal of work is going forward, and we hope the member will greet the bill with enthusiasm when it is introduced.

Mr. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question. The Treasurer is adamantly defending a bill, which he apparently has seen, and he has then told us not to believe press reports.

Until the Treasurer gives us a bill, we are going to deal with the documents that are before us, whether they are in the press or come by way of a brown paper envelope, and he is going to be expected to answer for that, because he is not giving us the legislation. In fact, he is obstructing the introduction of legislation into the House. He is preventing it from coming forward. He is making it impossible for us to be able even to debate it. Can the Treasurer not explain the overlap between the policy of the Liberal cabinet and that of the National Citizens' Coalition?

Mr. McClellan: They are both from London.

Mr. Rae: We have an increasing ease in explaining and understanding that overlap. We observed it for the past 42 years, and it appears the Liberals are following the same pattern.

Can the Treasurer explain the peculiar overlap with the statement of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Ontario division, in March 1986, which said there should be a minimum four-year phase-in period before complaints would be allowed? Why were the demands of countless women's groups across this province turned off and denied and the demands of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot recall ever agreeing with the National Citizens' Coalition, but there may have been some instances when I did personally. That the leader of the third party sees some overlap is mostly a function of his having too many researchers around reading old documents rather than information of any significance.

Ms. Gigantes: Are we to understand from what the Treasurer is saying and what we have read that his concept of equity in this question is that it is fair and it is just that 50 per cent of women are covered and the other 50 per cent are not?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To go to an indication in the previous question, I do not believe that a bill in draft form exists. It may. I know that many research papers and proposals are available. I really do not know what has been conveyed to the honourable member and her colleagues and to the reporters around town. I think that is significant. However, I am not going to comment on that other than to say that intensive and effective work is going forward in the preparation of world-class legislation, which I am sure the honourable member will be delighted to support.

PRIVACY RIGHTS

Ms. Fish: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will the minister detail for this House what security precautions his ministry has in place to protect the privacy of information collected on the automobile owners of this province?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member is aware that certain agencies, insurance companies, lawyers, and at certain times private citizens, can obtain a certain piece of information under the legislation, certainly not the kind of information that was alleged in the House yesterday. As I mentioned yesterday, perhaps outside of the House, because of that incident, we are going to take a look at whether or not the existing legislation needs to be tightened up so it is not used in any frivolous or harmful way.

Ms. Fish: I bring to the minister's attention the fact that this morning we gave the ministry two plate numbers, $5, and the time it took to fill in a form this long. We received extensive information and the names and addresses of single women in Toronto. At no time were we asked why we wanted this information and at no time were we asked for any identification of ourselves.

I am extremely alarmed by the potential abuse of such availability of information. Will the minister today instruct that such information not be available under those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I certainly share the member's concern for any abuse or misuse of any of that kind of information. We have stated that it is now available and it is available under the legislation passed by the previous government. I stated yesterday and I have stated again today that I am directing my staff to look at how that may be or should be tightened up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is it too much to ask that you allow other members to ask questions?

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Reville: In the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will direct my question to the Treasurer of Ontario.

Yesterday the Ministry of the Environment finally released the results of the soil testing in south Riverdale. Those results are absolutely devastating. Of the properties tested, 93 per cent show lead contamination that is a danger to the lives of our citizens. Will the Treasurer now commit funds to replace the soil and start protecting the health of our children in south Riverdale?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I bring to the attention of the members the fact that the Minister of the Environment is in St. Catharines attending the funeral of Mr. Welch, Senior, the father of Bob Welch. I know we extend our sympathy to the Welch family. When the minister was leaving, he indicated by a note that a question of this important nature might be raised. I really feel it would be more appropriate if he answered himself. He simply wanted me to convey to the House that he was concerned about the report and he is looking into it very carefully.

The specific question deals with my responsibility in providing funds. The member knows the Treasury, with the concurrence of members of the cabinet, has provided funds for a number of environmental programs and initiatives. We have done so with enthusiasm, alacrity and generosity.

Mr. Reville: There may be some question about the alacrity. May I remind the House that the elder statesman from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk six days short of 13 years ago in this very chamber, when he was Leader of the Opposition, joined with my predecessor, the late Jim Renwick, in climbing all over the government of the day on the matter of lead in south Riverdale. Is the Treasurer --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a supplementary question coming.

Mr. Reville: Is the Treasurer prepared to say to the House and to Ms. Maureen McDonnell, who is here in the gallery, has three children and lives in south Riverdale, that the Minister of the Environment is looking at it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know the honourable member, being a reasonable man, will not expect me to make a commitment on the basis of my knowledge of the matter as it is currently put forward in the most recent report. I have indicated that the minister has conveyed to me his concern and the active attention of his ministry.

In direct response to the member's question to the Treasurer, appropriate financing will be made available for all these approved environmental operations.

15:20

PROPERTY REASSESSMENT

Mr. Polsinelli: As the Minister of Revenue is aware, assessment values in what is now Metropolitan Toronto have remained unchanged for at least 40 years. This has resulted in grave inequities in the collection of property taxes. Thousands of Metro Toronto home owners are paying much more than their fair share. Given that the previous government did not have the political will to correct these inequities, will the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue please advise us of his position on the issue?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When it comes to reassessment, the political will is variable, and that is recognizable. The honourable member will be interested to know, and I think is aware, that the Ministry of Revenue prepared a report on market value assessment and reassessment under the chairmanship of my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who is not in the House today.

This report gave some leadership to the cities of Metropolitan Toronto to consider whether they wanted to proceed with Metro-wide reassessment or some other variation. They gave this very careful consideration in spite of threats from irresponsible oppositionists that market value reassessment would lead to blood in the gutters. I think that is the exact phrase. Still, it was given serious consideration.

I regret to inform the House of something it already knows, that the Metropolitan Toronto council decided not to proceed. The member knows it did undertake to review the original decision. That review comes forward in the next few days. I believe the executive committee has decided that if it is going to be done, it must be done at the initiative of the provincial government.

We undoubtedly have the right to bring a bill before the Legislature empowering reassessment to take place on a Metro-wide basis. I do not intend to avail myself of that power at this time, because I feel the responsibility lies with the cities and the Metropolitan Toronto council.

Mr. Polsinelli: The 1980 report on the impact of market value assessment, which was released by our government shortly after taking office in 1986, shows that more than 80 per cent of the home owners in my riding would receive a tax reduction. Owners of some single-family homes in my riding worth $100,000 are paying as much in property taxes as the owners of some properties worth $400,000 in the Yonge and Sheppard area.

It appears that the Metropolitan Toronto council, while recognizing the need for market value reassessment, is abdicating its responsibility in this regard. Knowing the minister's concern for fair taxation in this province, can he assure this House today that at some point within the foreseeable future tax reform will occur in this municipality?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The answer, of course, is yes, it will eventually occur. The honourable members know that many scores of municipalities, recognizing that inadequate assessment is leading to unfair taxation, have requested reassessment under section 63. As a matter of fact, all the municipalities in Brant county did this over the past year. I had the honour as Minister of Revenue to approve that reassessment. There were certain dislocations, pressures and tensions resulting from that, which tend to be subsiding, I am pleased to inform the members.

Some fairly major municipalities, some very large cities, have gone forward with reassessment. I think Mississauga is the largest. This was not a simple decision to be made by the mayor and council, and the reassessment there presented some difficulties. Once again I believe it was the right and politically courageous thing to do, and it was done properly at the behest of the locally elected council.

My advice to the councils of the cities of Metropolitan Toronto is that they should recognize their responsibilities and request reassessment, which we would be glad to proceed with as soon as we possibly could.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and fast sales concerning the supposed sale of Minaki Lodge, which is beginning to look like another mismanaged deal similar to the Urban Transportation Development Corp. one. Can the minister tell this House why today he would announce the sale in principle of a crown-owned resort before any agreement is signed, and in announcing the sale talk about all the funds Minaki will require to maintain it in the future?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This is a progress report today and this assembly is the place for it. It is in this assembly that we should report on such agencies as Minaki Lodge. Those people have a very short memory. When they announced Deerhurst, they went up into Muskoka; they did not announce it in this House. That is why we are announcing it here today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully. It is very constructive.

Mr. Rowe: We on this side of the House do not apologize for keeping people employed in northwestern Ontario in a huge tourist investment, the best in the world.

Since he is in charge of announcing this deal, can the minister tell this House how much the Ontario taxpayers will receive for Minaki and what studies the government has done to establish the market price for Minaki, or has it simply jumped the gun again and stands to blow another deal?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: What I have announced today is an agreement in principle. As I mentioned to the honourable member, the full details will be released in the House, not outside the House. The member's leader goes up to northern Ontario and talks about Minaki Lodge and then comes down to the Toronto area and says it is going to hurt him. He has two stories on that, and we have one. We will make our decisions right here in the House.

SALE OF PAPER MILL

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. It concerns a petition I have received that has been signed by more than 1,400 people who live in Smooth Rock Falls, Moonbeam and Fauquier. They are all employees of the mill in Smooth Rock Falls, and they have some very specific questions for the government that the government has been unable to answer.

My initial question to the Minister of Natural Resources is this: Since the deal to sell the mill from Abitibi-Price to Mallette took place at the end of August, why has it been impossible for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines even to meet with the workers to talk about their concerns relating to the shutdown of that mill? Why has it been impossible to arrange that kind of meeting? Why is he himself declining to meet directly with the employees -- as I understand it and according to the information they have received -- and the Mallette Waferboard Corp. to discuss the deal that is going ahead as of December 1?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am pleased to respond to the leader of the third party that I am prepared to meet at any time with the workers at Smooth Rock Falls. I can honestly say I have not been asked. If there has been some problem in communication, I am very much prepared to meet with them at any time we can arrange such a meeting.

15:30

Mr. Laughren: That is a very strange response, given the fact that only this morning the minister's deputy refused to have the minister meet with the Canadian Paperworkers Union over this dispute.

Further, the minister surely knows that on September 22, the Premier told the union that no deal would be signed and no cutting rights would be transferred until this minister had thoroughly investigated the whole question, because there is a very real concern that the pulp mill will be shut down, as the stud mill has already been.

Will the minister guarantee us that the cutting limits will be tied to the pulp mill and the stud mill in Smooth Rock Falls so that there is a guarantee of some kind of economic future for Smooth Rock Falls?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am not prepared to accept that I was asked to meet with these gentlemen, but I will make the comment and the promise here and now that I will meet with them on very short notice and go into the questions the member raises with me. I am very much prepared to meet as quickly as we can.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I have been speaking recently with some of the students, faculty and staff of Centennial College, which is in my riding of York East. They are interested in knowing what has happened to the Pitman report of last June and what actions the minister proposes to take in relation to that report.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is interesting that my colleague the member for York East should ask that question. It gives me an opportunity to respond to the very same question my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) will be asking me in a few short minutes in estimates.

Walter Pitman submitted a report to me on governance within the community colleges; that was towards the end of July. I invited the entire community, including staff, students, faculty members, presidents and boards of governors, to respond by September 30. We have all those responses now, and we are proceeding towards articulating our final determinations on the changes we are going to make in governance.

I simply want to advise the member that we are not going to proceed on Mr. Pitman's advice with respect to the Council of Regents. He suggested the disbandment of the Council of Regents and the creation of three separate advisory bodies. However, he did give some very sound advice with respect to internal representation on college boards from within the community of the colleges, and we are proceeding to follow up how we can implement those recommendations in practice.

Ms. Hart: The Centennial College community is particularly interested in seeing broader representation on the board of governors of the college, perhaps using the university model. Does the minister propose to make any changes in this regard?

Mr. Warner: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, you probably heard the comments of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, as if somehow that party has a monopoly on democracy. The answer --

Mr. Warner: No; just the information.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is the approach of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

The answer is that we are going to be making changes. I cannot tell my friend the member for York East exactly how we are going to structure internal representation on boards of governors, but we are going to be proceeding in a direction that I think not only those who have a monopoly on democracy across the House but everyone in this House will be glad to see.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: A point of order?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. It is an important point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What could be -- try me for a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: May I try it?

Mr. McClellan: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it is a point of order until I hear it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has agreed to meet with the workers at 4:30 p.m. , and I shall be at the meeting. It is important.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; that is a point of information.

BRUCE PENINSULA NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Bernier: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister tell this House how he rationalized the unprecedented giveaway of the Fathom Five and Cypress Lake provincial parks on the Bruce Peninsula, an area totalling some 17,000 acres of land, plus the facilities, whose total estimated value is $8.5 million? For this we are told the province will get a national park, which will eliminate hunting, trapping and fish management within its borders. How can the minister rationalize this giveaway?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I can rationalize it in a way that it is going to please many hundreds of people in the future. We all know it is with wonderment that we think of the people who years ago set aside very important national parks for the people of Canada to enjoy. We are participating now in such a park in the Bruce Peninsula within the bounds of Ontario.

While the honourable member makes a reasonable point about the hunting and fishing, we rationalize this by taking away some of the areas that were to be included in the original size of the park so that the historical uses in some of those areas will continue.

In the overall picture, to have a national park in the Bruce Peninsula is something that has been accepted by the municipalities and the people of the area to a great degree.

Mr. Bernier: That is a very weak response, I must say. I ask the minister: In this unprecedented giveaway, was he aware of the fact that the previous Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), had undertaken negotiations with the federal government and had demanded a fair market value for those lands and the retention of hunting and trapping within its boundaries?

Why has the minister sold out all the hunters, trappers and fishermen in the Bruce Peninsula, when even his senior staff recommended that hunting should be retained in that area?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The fact that a previous minister dug his heels in is the reason we were not going to have a national park there, and now we are. I am very pleased to stand in my place here and tell the people of Ontario that we have a new national park in the Bruce Peninsula and that many years hence there are going to be many thousands in future generations who will enjoy that park.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will just wait. Order. I would like to have as many members as possible ask questions.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your getting a little silence before I got up. It will disappear in no time, I am sure.

My question is for the Treasurer. Today the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto issued this document, called Living on the Margin, another analysis of poverty in Ontario. I want to ask some questions around the question of the working poor in Ontario and what programs the Treasurer may have to provide.

The council indicates on page 114 of its document that many families who are the working poor in the province at the moment need to make at least $8 an hour to be able to get by in places such as Metropolitan Toronto. Does the government have plans for introducing work supplement plans, such as those in Quebec or in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, to assist the working poor, who are being excessively hard hit currently in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is participating in our discussions for the allocation, preceding next year's budget. Associated additional expenditures, such as improvements in payments that normally are announced before the beginning of the calendar year, are also being discussed. The member should direct his question to the minister when he is here, because he could give a much more appropriate answer than I can.

I can give the member an assurance that will not put much bread on the table, nor, I suspect, give him much satisfaction, by simply saying that the government is as supportive as it can be of progressive and useful programs that are going to relieve the difficulties of poverty in this city and across the province.

15:40

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The reason I went to the Treasurer was that there is some feeling out there that a fair amount of money is going to be required to bring this system up to date and he is the final arbitrator of that over there. It would therefore be important to find out where he stands on these matters as well even if the minister were here currently.

Coincidentally, I happened to get a call today from a constituent, a woman who works for an electrical firm and earns just under $13,000 a year. She complained to me that even though her rent does not seem excessive at $460 a month, to which it is just going up, she does not feel she is capable of maintaining that rent, which is around 54 per cent of her net income.

Three years ago, she had put in an application for Ontario Housing and was told that it takes three years to get on the list. As of this morning, she has been told that she was taken off the list. For a person in her category, it will take at least five years to get assisted housing in Ontario.

Does the Treasurer have plans in place to assist people with their enormous housing costs, which are eating so extremely into their budgets? This applies especially to single parents.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The only answer I can give the honourable member is that the Minister of Community and Social Services has put to me and to our colleagues the very strong indications of growing needs both here in the Metropolitan Toronto area and elsewhere in the province in this connection. We are subject to many demands.

The member refers to me as the final arbiter in these matters. If that is so, I feel under a good deal of tension and pressure in all ways. It is a joint decision made by all members of the cabinet as to how the financial pie is going to be distributed.

Again, I simply reiterate the concern that the minister and all of us as his colleagues feel in this regard. I hope our decisions are going to improve the situation.

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), who I notice just ducked out.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps someone else may have a question of another minister. I do not see that minister here.

Mr. Sterling: I will bow to the member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: My minister has also ducked out. I guess the news has got through. It is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro).

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Carleton-Grenville wish to direct the question to another minister?

TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Sterling: I will ask the question of the Treasurer.

A number of studies dealing with health effects from high-power tension lines have been done recently, in the United States in particular. Some recent studies have been done in Canada. The most recent one was by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, Toronto, showing that electrical workers died of leukemia at more than twice the expected rate.

Reports from a number of studies cannot explain that people who are exposed to elevated magnetic fields are more subject to cancer than people who are not.

Even an official in Ontario Hydro, John O'Grady, was quoted recently in the Ottawa Citizen as saying, "Now that is not to say there is no risk, but it has not been established to date."

The New York state health department has commissioned $5-million worth of studies on this matter. What is the government doing to attack and address this concern of many people who are exposed to high tension wires?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to redirect the question to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Thank you very much. It is a very important question that has been studied in a great many jurisdictions. The impact on people who are working with and living near and around high tension wires, where the induced currents from high voltage travelling through the lines would set up a field of energy beyond the lines itself, has been studied.

In all the studies to this time, there are no real indications that it has any effect on human beings or animals, except for the cathodic action that is picked up in pipes in the ground.

As time goes on and people become more interested, we may see studies that would cause us to re-examine the situation, which we will be very prepared to do.

Mr. Sterling: Unfortunately, the people of the community of Bridlewood in Kanata, who, because of a joint board hearing have to accept twin towers to bring the main power line from Lennox to Ottawa, are not convinced by the assurances of Ontario Hydro. Last Monday night, 150 concerned parents and citizens did not have their fears alleviated by Ontario Hydro's assurance that the new dual towers bringing in these lines will not be any more dangerous than the existing towers. I believe there is mounting evidence --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

M. Sterling: -- that there are ill effects in this area. Will the minister consider asking his cabinet colleagues to reconsider the route selection through Kanata to skirt this community and not expose these people to high-power tension lines?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have been discussing this very issue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) because he brought it to my attention. Everyone here is aware that the hearings undertaken by Ontario Hydro for transmission lines are such that anyone or any group of people that has concerns about various situations can put their feelings to a hearing board. I cannot believe they would not have made that case when the route was being determined, but I will take the honourable member's question into account and talk with our people at Ontario Hydro to see whether there is any new evidence that there are concerns.

HAMILTON HEALTH FACILITY

Mr. Mackenzie: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. From his many years in this House, the Treasurer will be well aware of the long fight for an east end medical facility in Hamilton, now more commonly referred to as the St. Joseph's ambulatory care unit. Some two years ago, the previous government made a commitment of some $10 million as the government's share towards the construction of this facility, which has taken 15 years to work through the process. Can the Treasurer tell us whether that commitment for the east end medical facility in Hamilton still stands with the present government?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot answer that definitively. There are a number of programs the previous government was interested in funding that we would like to fund as well, but I am not sure whether this is one that is going forward. I recall the situation because the community has been advocating that very powerfully for many years. I sincerely hope that funding can be found to promote it. The honourable member will be aware that the budget of last May included $850 million over a period of three to eight years; that is, the construction would have to be completed by that time. That will be by no means the limit on capital commitments. Whether the minister has included that in the list, I do not know.

Mr. Mackenzie: The community is working on the assumption that it is, but there has never been any formal recommitment of the $10 million. I know the total plans for the unit have been in the minister's office for a good many weeks. Will the Treasurer take the opportunity to check with the minister when we might see approval of those plans and give me an answer whether the commitment of $10 million that was made is still there?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish the member would ask the question directly of the minister, who is usually in his place -- he was there until about 10 minutes ago -- but since it does involve public funds, I can undertake to track down the status of the situation and report to the member.

ARTS FUNDING

Mrs. Marland: My question was for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), but I see she is not back in the House, so I will ask the question of the Treasurer since he is the person who controls the purse-strings for the province in any case. Does he support the concept of the Ontario Arts Council being an independent, arm's-length body that would distribute government grants to arts community groups?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of course, I do. I know what the honourable member is referring to. I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Culture make the announcement. Was it $1.8 million?

Mrs. Marland: It was $2.5 million.

15:50

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was $2.5 million extra, above and beyond the allocation for culture, which is substantially greater than the revenues of Wintario and Lottario in this year. The allocations this year have been greater than the year before, as the member has been made aware of clearly and repeatedly. I just want to be sure she is aware of it. The role of the arts council is extremely important, but these were ancillary payments made under, I would not say emergency circumstances but circumstances involving the substantial debt of these major organizations. I was very glad that the Minister of Citizenship and Culture was able to make this announcement and also that she had the resources to make the payment. The money was made available from the generosity of the people of Ontario and through the Treasury of the province.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Again today we have checked with the table and found the government has failed to file with the Clerk of the House the computer contracts promised by way of a question in Orders and Notices on October 16. Today is October 23. There is a growing suspicion the government is trying to cover this up.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not going to apologize, since the honourable member knows this is a huge opus he has requested. It costs a lot of money and a lot of work. I was informed when I asked for it to be tabled today that there a couple of what they call sign-offs, where deputy ministers approve the information that is going to be tabled. I give my best commitment that it will be available on Monday. I sincerely hope it will be available Monday.

PETITION

VENTE DE MOULINS À PAPIER

M. Rae: J'ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit: "Au lieutenant-gouverneur et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, les soussignés, résidents de Smooth Rock Falls, Departure Lake, Strickland, Fauquier et Moonbeam, demandons au parlement de l'Ontario ce qui suit:

"Que ce gouvernement de l'Ontario:

"Au sujet de la vente des moulins bleached kraft pulp et stud de l'Abitibi-Price Inc. de Smooth Rock Falls, Ontario, à la compagnie Waferboard Corp., et conditionnellement au transfert des droits de coupe du bois et en consultation avec les deux groupes suivants, c'est-à-dire le Syndicat canadien des travailleurs du papier, qui représente les employés, aussi avec la communauté:

"Veuillez considérer lier les droits de coupe du bois aux opérations de cette entreprise seulement;

"Demandez qu'un montant approprié des profits générés dans ces opérations soit réinvesti pour la modernisation de ces moulins à Smooth Rock Falls;

"Investiguez la possibilité d'établir une entreprise coopérative dans la manufacture, avec l'employeur, les employés et la communauté;

"Veuillez aussi considérer à participer dans la modernisation de ces opérations, tout en approchant le gouvernement fédéral d'en faire autant."

Signée par plus de 1,400 personnes des villes et des villages de Smooth Rock Falls, Departure Lake, Strickland, Fauquier et Moonbeam.

This petition is signed by about 1,400 residents of Smooth Rock Falls, Departure Lake, Strickland, Fauquier and Moonbeam, basically demanding that the government of Ontario take steps to ensure that the timber rights connected to the mill in Smooth Rock Falls be tied to the continuation of the work of that mill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the member has presented the petition. I believe it is self-explanatory.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the following report and moved the adoption of its recommendations:

The committee has met to consider the hours of sitting of the House and recommends that the provisional standing orders be amended to provide that when the House meets in the afternoons, the hours of sitting be from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.

The committee further recommends that the change in the hours of sitting take effect on Monday, October 27, 1986.

Mr. Breaugh: This is a one-item report. I understand there is general agreement that in order to implement this recommendation, we agree to have the vote on the matter this afternoon. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with that vote now.

Mr. Harris: I am prepared to give that unanimous consent at the conclusion of my remarks, which will be very brief. I want to say on behalf of our party we are pleased to support the recommendation of the committee and to congratulate it on arriving at what I think will be an improvement.

I have one question; it may not be a problem. The recommendation from the committee made no reference to it being on an experimental basis, which we are on now.

Mr. Breaugh: It mentions the provisional standing orders.

Mr. Harris: As long as it is understood we are in this process of having gone to the new sitting times and the new hours.

Our party has one reservation, and there was a good example today at two o'clock. As usual the government House leader was here in his place in the House and did a good job of fielding about 18 different questions from 18 different members. We have a grave concern about the attendance at two o'clock of ministers in their places in the House and we want to reiterate an even graver concern that they will be able to get here at 1:30 p.m. We have that reservation and we hope the government will take note of it.

Otherwise, we will be delighted to give this a try and see how it goes. I know it meets with the approval of the media, which have suggested that the 1:30 p.m. start suits their requirements a little better as well.

Mr. McClellan: The New Democratic Party also supports the recommendation of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to alter our schedule. We are adopting these hours primarily to accommodate the deadlines of the media attached to the Queen's Park press gallery.

I add again for the public record, since there has been so much discussion lately and preposterous allegations of delay and obstructionism, we ourselves are willing, if necessary, to extend the afternoon sitting hours from one o'clock to 6:30 p.m., if there is any slight perception that additional time is required.

That offer was put forward but was rejected by my friends in the government. However, the offer still stands. If we discover that for any slight reason at all the government feels it needs more time to accomplish the business of the House for the people of Ontario, we are only too willing to extend the sitting times to accomplish that objective.

Mr. Mancini: I note the paranoia in the statement made by the House leader for the New Democratic Party. He knows as well as anyone else that things have not been moving very quickly since the House commenced after our long recess. We are pleased he has made the offer on behalf of his party to extend our hours. If things proceed at the rate they are proceeding now, I believe we will have to extend the hours and the committee on the Legislative Assembly committee will have to meet again about this very important matter.

16:00

When we were in committee, we discussed several different items pertaining to changing the hours. As a committee, we felt the appropriate thing to do at this time was to start the proceedings at 1:30 p.m. to accommodate members of the gallery and therefore the general public.

I should point out that when the committee made its original report, we specified 1:30, if I am not incorrect. I see the chairman of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly nodding yes. At that time, when the report was dealt with by the House leaders, it was the Conservative leader who stated he needed the extra time to prepare himself for question period. I see there has been a change of heart.

I in particular want to thank the cabinet, which has full-day meetings on Wednesdays and is prepared to go from the cabinet meetings right into the assembly. Members will recall that we could not extract that same concession from the previous government. As a matter of fact, it did not have any sittings on Wednesdays. The cabinet should be acknowledged for the efforts it has made in having the rules of the House changed, for the efforts it has --

Mr. Eves: You can have cabinet meetings all day Friday. There is no problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I know there is a lot of embarrassment on the other side, but the facts are as they are.

I want to say again to the House leader of the New Democratic Party -- and I hope he can hear me over the heckling of the Conservative members -- that we have heard him loud and clear. We have heard his invitation to extend the hours, and maybe some time in the near future we may have to accept his suggestion.

Mr. Breaugh: I was not going to speak in this debate, but I have to clarify the record. Yesterday, in the committee, attempts were made by members of the New Democratic Party to begin the proceedings at 1 p.m. and to carry through until 6:30. Those attempts were rejected by the government members and members of the Conservative Party on the basis that no additional sitting time was required.

I thought it would be simpler to present a report that advanced the hours to accommodate the needs of members of the press gallery and others. I did not want to get into this argument, but I think it is necessary that I put on the record that the attempt was made yesterday to extend the hours of sitting to provide additional sitting times. This recommendation does not do that; it simply adjusts the hours under the provisional standing orders.

However, as late as yesterday afternoon, the opportunity to provide additional sitting time was presented and rejected, and that is not what this recommendation says; it simply starts us a half-hour earlier and ends us at 6 o clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When we started, this was asking permission for unanimous consent to debate, and I think I was listening very carefully. I may have given a little extra leeway.

Mr. Ashe: We got the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I believe so. It appears it is time to put the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mean to be precipitous here. It is a little hard to do this, but after the fact, can we have agreement that we have unanimous consent? I have not heard that question put yet. I take it we do, since we just had the vote, but on the off chance, will you put the question?

Mr. Speaker: I took it from the comments of the members.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Runciman from the standing committee on public accounts presented the following report:

Your committee wishes to advise the House that it has completed consideration of its order of reference dated Monday, June 16, 1986, relating to the allegation of conflict of interest concerning Elinor Caplan, MPP.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order of precedence for private members' public business be amended as follows:

Ballot item 26, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in place of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart); ballot item 32, the member for Welland-Thorold in place of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel); ballot item 44, the member for Sudbury East in place of the member for Scarborough West.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not have any comments at this time. I think the bill was adequately outlined in my statement today.

LOI DE 1986 SUR LES COMPAGNIES DE PRÊT ET DE FIDUCIE

L'hon. M. Kwinter propose la première lecture de la version française du projet de loi 116, Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les compagnies de prêt et de fiducie.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter further moved that Bill 116 be reprinted in bilingual form.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: This will be the first major corporate-commercial bill to be available in bilingual form in Ontario. It has been an extensive undertaking, and I believe it is an initiative the government can view with pride.

J'ai déposé la version française du projet de loi 116, aujourd'hui, afin que la Loi portant révision de la Loi sur les compagnies de prêt et de fiducie soit disponible en version bilingue pour une deuxième lecture et révision article par article.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Miss Stephenson: I was about to begin my participation in this debate, but there is no one sitting in the Treasurer's chair. Now there is something sitting in the Treasurer's chair -- I mean "someone." Forgive me for that Freudian slip.

Mr. Foulds: Ambition will get the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio).

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is listening to the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson).

Mr. Foulds: No. I think he is out talking.

Miss Stephenson: Is he afraid? He is hiding.

16:10

I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 26 because this piece of legislation, which is primarily housekeeping, has some very interesting, conflicting philosophies contained therein. I am intrigued that the Treasurer cannot seem to make up his mind whether it is more appropriate to pronounce an exemption or a rebate. I have a little difficulty in determining the rationale for the position which changes an exemption to a rebate. There is no explanation for it.

At any rate, I do understand the motivation of the Treasurer as far as the removal of the rebate is concerned and the move to an amendment that provides for an exemption for university research equipment in particular, since this is a position I have proposed and supported strongly for four years. I believe the cash flow of the universities should be somewhat improved by this small move; it will ensure that they will not have to pay out the money and then wait for it to come back.

I can assume that the concern I have for the universities is also one that should be shared with the farmers of the province who need to buy equipment for grain storage. Why is the Treasurer deciding that those relatively small businessmen, who may have a small fleet of small trucks and who decide to go to alternative fuels, should have to go to the expense of the conversion without any kind of tax exemption and then wait upon the Treasurer's pleasure to receive that which is perceived to be a rebate for that conversion? It seems to me it would be equally difficult for the small businessman in that circumstance.

I do not know why the Treasurer has decided he must move in this direction. Is it because there has been a great deal of misuse or abuse of this exemption? If that is so, we have not heard about it. It is not a huge amount of money, and I do not think the amount that has been lost to the Treasury has been overwhelming. Or is it because the Treasurer does not believe there is value in the conversion program? Is he actually saying to us that he does not care any more whether automobiles or trucks in this province are converted from the traditional combustion to the new kinds of fuels, which were a part of the program that was established?

The intent of this amendment to the Retail Sales Tax Act several years ago was that as much encouragement as possible should be given to ensure that interest was stimulated to remove the dependence upon the burning of gasoline per se in automobiles and trucks. This was not simply to conserve those materials but also, I am sure, to improve our environmental situation, since there is no doubt that combustion provides us with some very grave environmental difficulties, some of which we should be able to reduce by the conversion to other forms of fuel.

Is the Treasurer doing this because he wants them all to convert to electric cars? Or what is he hoping to achieve with this kind of inconsistency, which it is, in this bill? Will the Treasurer tell me today his motivation for the move he is apparently taking in this situation? It may have a very severe impact on small businessmen and on ordinary consumers in the province in a way which I doubt is entirely appropriate as far as their cash flow and their problems are concerned.

The members who have spoken to this bill have addressed the sales tax exemption for trucks, trailers and large trailers manufactured within Ontario. That is obviously a matter of grave concern, in particular in the ridings with manufacturing entities that produce such vehicles. The potential for unemployment is very significant because of the drastic action of cutting off the tax exemption as of January 1, 1987, as suggested by the Treasurer.

I know the Treasurer does not like to set precedents about anything. He is an extremely traditional man, and he would rather -- I was a little afraid to suggest that I might call him a conservative, but he is. He is quite a conservative individual, and it is not the kind of action he would normally take to set a dramatic precedent. However, if it will have a reasonable result in the area of employment in Ontario within the area of the financial viability of a number of trucking companies, and if it will ensure that some small trucking companies will be able to survive the invasion which occurs with some regularity in this province of trucking industries across the border -- with the help of the cabinet of Ontario within the past several months, I must say -- perhaps the suggestion that this change be phased in is one he might look at as a useful exercise on this occasion.

He can very clearly say this does not constitute a precedent but just a result of his examination of this problem with good sense, with rationality and with a logical approach to trying to ensure we do not damage unduly the employment picture in a number of ridings in the province. He might move in that direction.

It is my sincere hope that the Treasurer will very carefully consider the suggestion that has been made. Notching, which has been suggested, may not be appropriate, and there may be a better way, but I ask him at least to consider that.

I will not say anything more about the tax exemption for the charitable and nonprofit theatres or groups within Ontario. It not only is problematic for those who run theatres in institutions or provide programs of entertainment within established buildings but also is going to be a very major problem for a number of communities that have agricultural fairs and a number of community groups that organize day programs within which there is an entertainment component.

It is not a very sensible approach to take, particularly, as has been suggested by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), when it is combined with the horrendous and somewhat draconian action of modifying section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. It appears the Treasurer is attempting to ensure that he will have total fiscal control over these groups, which attempt to provide us with our characteristic cultural activities so as to maintain our specific cultural identity within Ontario, and is hoping to ensure that his heavy hand will be able to control whatever it is they are going to do.

The Treasurer should very carefully reconsider the action he is proposing to take in that section of this bill. I would hope he would look at the suggestions that have been made by a number of people who have stood in their places in this House and have suggested to him means of addressing the problem as it is perceived by the theatres themselves and by the voluntary and nonprofit groups. I would also hope that he would ensure there is some modification to this bill after it has been examined in committee to allow them some sense of security that they are going to be able to continue to function without having the Treasurer tell them what they are or are not going to be able to do.

I do not think that is what the Treasurer wants to do. I think what he wants is to attempt, through some sleight of hand, to suggest to the people of Ontario that he has a firm hand on the sales tax pulse of Ontario. His hand is firm always, I have no doubt about that, but I am not sure this is the place to exercise the kind of control that he apparently considers to be appropriate.

I say to the Treasurer -- he is not paying any attention, but I will say it anyway -- I have much less concern with the minimal, very limited competition that occurs as a result of the exemption that is permitted currently, the kind of disadvantage the totally private theatres feel they have. They do not seem to suffer very dramatically.

16:20

There is a much more serious situation that the Treasurer should be addressing, and that is the lack of competition, the disadvantage that is occasioned upon the private sector consulting firms which are attempting to compete with consulting firms that are almost totally publicly funded. That is a much greater problem than this. Why does he not address that instead of looking at this little wee problem of whether the Royal Alexandra Theatre is going to be able to compete appropriately with the O'Keefe Centre? Surely he knows Mr. Mirvish is not entirely lacking in dough, greenbacks, money or whatever one wants to call it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Neither is Harry Belafonte.

Miss Stephenson: Neither is Harry Belafonte. I am not suggesting he is, but I am suggesting that the Treasurer is maintaining another area of disadvantage in ensuring that Ontario Place does not suffer at all from the same kind of heavy hand he is attempting to place upon the other theatres, those that receive some support from municipalities, from the provincial government or from nonprofit groups. There are ways in which this could be done without this kind of draconian activity. It is not beyond the scope of the minister's fertile imagination to attempt to find an alternative route to sort out the problem appropriately. This is not the way to do it.

The Treasurer has been absent during my expression of concern. I hope he heard the concern I expressed about his apparent ambivalence in direction in this bill. I cannot tell whether he did because he is busy reading a note. Did the Treasurer hear my question?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What question?

Miss Stephenson: Obviously, he did not hear it. What was his motivation in switching from exemption to rebate in terms of the alternative fuels program?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Fairness and equity and improving cash flow.

Miss Stephenson: What'? How can he employ a cash flow with a rebate, for heaven's sake.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Getting the money.

Miss Stephenson: Who needs the money? The Treasurer gets the money. Is it his cash flow he is worried about?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of course.

Miss Stephenson: Of course, it is his cash flow. It has nothing to do with the taxpayers. The only cash flow he is worried about is his. That is unfair. It is unworthy of the Treasurer of Ontario to worry only about his cash flow. Was there a problem? Were people abusing this program? Does he have figures to demonstrate there was a need to move in this direction? Since he is already going from rebate to exemption in the area of grain storage bins and research equipment, why on earth would he go from exemption to rebate in the area of alternative fuels?

Mr. Foulds: Because he can cap it, which is what he has done.

Miss Stephenson: I know he has capped it. Was that the only reason? Is he interested at all in the alternative fuels program? Is he interested at all in the preservation of the environment through the alternative fuels program? Is he interested in the development of new technology in terms of alternative fuels for motor vehicles? Is he interested in that? No. The government sold the Urban Transportation Development Corp. It has sold everything. I wish the Treasurer had been around. I still think we might not have suffered quite so badly if he had done some of the negotiation on UTDC.

What a mess they have caused. I really believe those guys were suckered. I believe they were the victims of misunderstanding or probably naïve acceptance of the propaganda they were given about the abilities of certain people. To put Ontario in the position of losing millions and millions of dollars to Lavalin? Really, it is sickening what they have done with UTDC.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about Minaki?

Miss Stephenson: Minaki Lodge has been a source of employment in Minaki.

Mr. Foulds: Fewer than 20 people from Minaki got employment there; fewer than 20 jobs were provided for northerners. They slammed the door in my face. I was turned away at the inn.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) will please be quiet at this point. He will have his two minutes to say what he wishes to say.

Miss Stephenson: There is no doubt about the fact that the kind of announcement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) today will ensure that we will also lose our shirts on Minaki. They are doing exactly the same thing they did with the UTDC. We will never get our equity out of it, never. That is primarily because of their total ineptitude in any kind of negotiation.

However, I am sorry; I am off the principle of this bill. This bill is an interesting bill and an important one in many ways. There are some very delightful little features in it and some that I really do not understand, unless the Treasurer really provides us with an honest response to my questions.

Mr. Haggerty: Is the member saying the Treasurer is dishonest?

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not. I just am suggesting that I will know the motivation for his apparent ambivalence in the position regarding rebate and exemption if he provides me with factual information that will demonstrate that there was a need to do this and that he is not simply destroying, as I think he is attempting to do, the alternative fuels program. He is hoping the people who are committed to it will go ahead and do the conversion and then forget to apply for it, of course. Even if they do apply for it, they will only get a part of the money to which they would have been entitled ordinarily.

I do not believe this is the appropriate kind of stimulus if the Treasurer has real concern about moving in the direction of developing new technology and new jobs, protecting the environment and conserving the fossil fuels we currently use for that purpose.

I hope the Treasurer will provide us with that answer. I hope he will also assure us today that this bill will go to committee for full discussion in order that we can receive the opinions of the groups affected, those who are going to be impacted somewhat painfully by some of the sections in this bill. I hope the Treasurer will provide us with answers to certain of the questions we have asked.

Mr. Foulds: First of all, I want to indicate that I support a number of the positions and innuendoes that the previous speaker put forward, although I must say I regret that her style has become so conciliatory over the last little while.

Miss Stephenson: I have been taking lessons from the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

Mr. Foulds: I particularly wanted to ask the honourable member this question. For one thing, does she believe, as I do, that the change which changes the exemption for alternative energy vehicles to a rebate harms the individual purchaser more than it harms the fleet purchaser?

Second, does she believe it would improve the cash flow, obviously, and the incentive for the purchaser of alternative energy vehicles to have the tax exemption rather than the rebate, because then the money does not need to be put up front, so to speak, and reclaimed?

Third, does she find this inconsistent, because in the previous section, in order to improve the cash flow for universities and for farmers, the Treasurer has rightly moved from a rebate package to an exemption package?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wait.

Miss Stephenson: Why do I have to wait?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Because it is my turn.

Mr. Foulds: No, she gets to reply to me.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do I not speak and then she speaks?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): It is the Treasurer's turn.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is my turn. Start the clock.

I appreciate the assistance of the member for Port Arthur in explaining the exemption to farmers and universities. If one has to put in for a rebate, one has to wait. If there is an exemption, it improves cash flow, which I thought the honourable member was talking about. That is clear, and I am sure that if she gives it the attention of her powerful mind just for a moment, she will see that this is an amendment which even she and her colleagues, the most paranoid group I have met in a day's march, will support.

16:30

Miss Stephenson: It is a pity the Treasurer was not here when I was saying just that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That they are a paranoid group?

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not any more paranoid than he is.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Okay. The honourable member must understand about repealing the exemption provided for alternative fuel vehicles and conversion kits. She knows her good friend, who has not been in the House lately, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), has purchased a beautiful big red car that he parks carefully out there in three places. Is it not his car? Is it really a Ferrari?

Mr. Breaugh: No, it is a Lada.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A Lada? It is not a Lamborghini; it is a big one. Actually, if he were to put in a conversion kit under the regulations that the member used to administer, he would get the whole car tax-free.

Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is an appropriate way, not to extract additional dollars but to continue to support the concept that we want people to use alternative fuels through a fair and controllable method of assisting through the tax system and encouraging those conversions.

Miss Stephenson: In response to the question placed by the member for Port Arthur, may I say I certainly did have some difficulty in trying to match the position taken, which I support, and I said that, if the member had deigned to be in the House while I was saying it.

Mr. Breaugh: That is better.

Miss Stephenson: Right. Regarding the necessary cash flow for universities and for farmers, I simply did not understand why he was going in this direction. I do not think the example he has provided us is entirely factual. I would like him to correct that, if he would, at some point because there would not be a totally free automobile as a result of that conversion.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not totally free.

Miss Stephenson: That is what the Treasurer said. He said he would almost pay nothing for it -- the tax for the automobile. That is not entirely true.

None the less, I do have concern that the individual purchaser is going to be very hard hit, particularly the purchaser who is going to buy a small automobile, who is not able to afford one but who really feels strongly about the use of alternative fuels. He is going to be particularly hard hit; but then the small fleet owner is almost equally hard hit. He has to make his total outlay and then has a limited rebate for which he may have to wait months, depending upon the pleasure of the Treasurer.

I am not sure that could be construed as a reasonable kind of stimulus or encouragement if the Treasurer is really interested in the alternative fuels program. I thought he was. If he is, I cannot see why he would move in this direction. I am sure there are other ways in which he can get greater control, if control is what he wants, but I do not think he should destroy the program by hitting it with a sledge-hammer.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak on this bill? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have already commented and used the new rules to make brief comments following a number of the speeches made by the honourable members. In response to the comment that the official critic for the opposition just made, I have talked to my official, and she is probably more nearly correct than I when it comes to tax-free Lamborghinis.

Miss Stephenson: I may be wrong, but I could never afford a Lamborghini.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The enactment will provide a refund designed to limit the maximum amount refundable for the vehicle. Some of the refunds, while they do not cover the cost of a Lamborghini, do cover an amazingly large number of dollars.

Miss Stephenson: When the Treasurer says "an amazingly large number," what is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will give the member a letter on it. They are big bucks.

The amendment essentially provides the limit we are talking about. I am still driving a lovely brown Olds 98, which our honourable friend does not like me to talk about very much. It uses number one gas, not propane or any other kind of hot air.

Miss Stephenson: If he breathed into it regularly, I am sure he could cut down on the amount of gasoline required.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is a dandy car, and I admire her taste in selecting it. It is standing up beautifully.

In general, the bill is not designed to be a great centrepiece of budgetary reform. The big item that returns a lot of dollars is the resumption of the sales tax of seven per cent on heavy trucks. This was lifted by the previous Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), in the depths of the recession earlier in this decade, I believe in the budget of 1983, when business and industry were suffering a substantial depression. The trucking industry lobbied for this, and it was granted. I think it was a wise thing to do.

It is not clear that the removal of the tax is the reason for the resumption of prosperity in the industry. The economy has improved substantially because of the initiative of Brian Mulroney. It must be him, because it is not me; at least, the opposition says it is not me. We know the great god of economics probably had something to do with it as well.

However, the economy in the trucking industry, as elsewhere, has resumed substantially. The statistics that are available to all members show it has even surpassed its previous peaks well before the recession earlier in this decade. Since we are the only province except Alberta that does not tax heavy trucks, it seems reasonable, for uniformity and for purposes of revenue, that it go back on.

The member who has just spoken and others have talked about phasing it in. One could say we are phasing it in. It was announced in the budget in May that the tax would resume next January. Presumably, the resumption of seven per cent immediately is a pretty big phase, but at least there was plenty of notice, and that is responsible more than anything else for the fact that projected sales in January and February are low.

Any businessman who has any capital or access to credit is going to make the purchase while the exemption is still there. Unfortunately, this will give some employment dislocation to the heavy truck manufacturers.

Miss Stephenson: It will.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is plenty of time for both the manufacturers and the unions to make appropriate plans for the period when the dislocation exists, because employment is high now. It is hard to get a heavy truck because it can be bought tax-free. Just as in all other provinces, including those with Conservative governments, the tax in Ontario will resume. Most provinces have a higher sales tax than we have, as the member knows.

The other section of this bill that has received a good deal of comment and that has substantial cost is the increase of the exemption on prepared foods to $2. Members know the background and the political business --

Mr. Foulds: Motivation.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right, the motivation associated with it, if one calls political motivation giving a sort of half-answer to a political promise. This is the best we can do at this time.

Mr. Foulds: A half what answer?

Mr. Ashe: A half-assed answer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought I would let the members do their work with that.

It is costing us $70 million, but it is something the party indicated it wanted to do. In fact, we promised an exemption of $4, which would cost double that, maybe a bit more. As we go through the four-year to five-year life of this administration before the next election, it remains to be seen whether we will move one way or another towards the fulfilment of that promise.

It is an expensive one, and I understand the difficulties associated with doing it in phases. It is probably a commentary on the criticism the honourable member directed at me in the early part of her remarks.

16:40

The other matter -- and I will not dwell on it either, because it has been thrashed around here repeatedly -- is the removal of some exemptions on entertainment tax in theatres and, I say, the rationalizing of the application of that tax. It is not designed to create any significant amount of revenue but is designed to apply the tax when foreign performers come into this jurisdiction and attract huge crowds at very high-priced ticket levels. We feel that is an appropriate time for the government to apply an entertainment tax.

Far more than the amount we collect is returned to the Canadian cultural and entertainment community in all sorts of grants and support. Members may like to say, why not earmark and designate the money? I have always been very much against that sort of budgeting. I assure members that an amount of more than any increase in funding that comes from this change will be going into the support of culture under the direction of my good friend and colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), who with the support of the Treasury has shown her generosity in this regard this very day with the announcement of an additional $2.5 million.

I say again, in case there are some people listening who were not listening earlier, the support of culture is far beyond the money collected from Wintario and Lottario. During the past two years, the commitment of these dollars has been larger in absolute amounts than the amount collected from those two lottery sources designated by law.

Mr. Foulds: For those years.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: For those years. For previous years, before we had the responsibility of government, the money, although required to be used for recreation and culture by the dedication of the law brought forward by that administration, was not used for that purpose. I am not saying anything illegal was done. It simply was kept as a notional or nominal fund in the consolidated revenue fund. It existed only as a number. It was not packed away or in a sock, but the Tories did not spend the money. I put those figures forward in question period; I will not do it again now, but I will do it again repeatedly.

That is why it just knocks me out when knowledgeable people in the community write to us. The most recent one is the wife of the former Premier, herself one of the finest ladies I know, who feels this policy is devastating as far as the cultural community is concerned. It just is not.

Mr. Harris: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It just is not. Our commitment is there for all to see, and I regret very much that people would criticize us when our intent is so clearly understood by sensible people and those who have any objectivity. In this instance, it is not a major part of the budget. It is simply an attempt to bring forward fairness and equity to change a situation that enables certain entrepreneurs in the business to engage very popular foreign performers, mostly Americans, who command huge prices and huge crowds, bring them in here and use our charitable institutions to get tax-free performances. When Bruce Springsteen fills the huge stadium --

Mr. Harris: For the cancer society.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not for the cancer society. He walked out of here with millions of dollars. I have no objection to that. He is one of the best entertainers in the world. At the same time, I believe that entertainment tax should be applied at 10 per cent, and I sincerely trust and hope it will be.

Mr. Foulds: You cannot tax him anyway.

Mr. Harris: You cannot tax him. He goes home with the same amount of money.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This amendment is brought in here for that purpose. We can spend a long time talking to people about whether it should go forward, and I am glad to defend it; if in its wisdom the House feels this should not proceed, then it obviously will not. But I regret there is so much, may I say, while you are not listening, Mr. Speaker, wilful misunderstanding in a matter that is important, at least in some degree, and that I think will be to the benefit of the people.

I understand the official opposition, for reasons I cannot understand, is going to oppose this bill in principle. Normally, we would go through the procedure of ringing the bells and having everybody stand up. According to the information I have, we will win anyway in spite of their opposition. At the same time, it is their feeling, and the official critic has said it very effectively, that the bill should go to committee for further review. In the interest of saving time and going forward with the bill, if the opposition is not going to ring the bells but will record its negative position on the bill in the usual way, we in turn will not attempt to stand in the way of its going out for a committee hearing.

I ask the House to support the bill. No tax bill is easy -- there is no doubt about that -- and it may be that my plea will fall on deaf ears. But I can assure members that this bill should be supported in principle, and I ask for that support of the House.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This bill implements amendments arising out of the proposals in the budget of May 13, amendments of an administrative nature and amendments required to parallel certain federal income tax provisions. The proposed amendments in the capital tax area will result in changes to the treatment of certain instruments and legislative reaffirmation of existing policy for others.

In the past, a 120-day holding period has been used as a yardstick for purposes of calculating the capital tax owing on various types of short-term debt. In general, if such short-term debt has been outstanding for a period of 120 days or more prior to year-end, the act requires that the debtor include the amount in paid-up capital for capital tax purposes. In addition, the issuer of such instruments outstanding for a period of 120 days or more is permitted to claim investment allowance in respect of the investment.

Certain types of short-term debt and investment are not bound by this 120-day rule, but as a result of this budget, this 120-day rule will apply to a broader range of short-term debt, namely, treasury bills, bonds and commercial paper. Formerly, these instruments were taxed where applicable, regardless of term or holding period and, on the other hand, were eligible for investment allowance regardless of term or holding period.

Another proposed amendment will require that bankers' acceptances, regardless of term or the purpose for which they are issued, be included in paid-up capital for the purpose of calculating capital tax. An exception is provided for investment dealers or brokers. Specifically, money market instruments held in the inventory of an investment dealer or broker will qualify for the investment allowance, regardless of the 120-day rule.

The aforementioned amendments regarding short-term investments are effective for the taxation years of corporations ending on or after January 1, 1987. In addition, the Corporations Tax Act will be amended to parallel the provisions of the federal Income Tax Act with respect to profit and capital gain reserves arising on the disposition of property. These amendments are effective for dispositions after December 31, 1986.

Finally, the bill contains amendments providing for certain administrative changes which are required as a result of amendments to the federal act.

16:50

Mr. Ashe: I shall be speaking briefly to this bill, because as the Treasurer has already indicated, it is pretty much housekeeping. It implements some changes as brought forth in the budget, in particular in the area of clarification of the 120-day rule and so on. It also brings forth many changes to keep it consequential to federal tax changes. But I do have one question that I hope the Treasurer in his capacity as Minister of Revenue can possibly clarify in a two-minute period and not have to save it until the end.

As the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue well knows, when we talk about the capital tax, there is an area in our society that has been very concerned. The farm equipment dealers in Ontario, because of the nature of their business, are required to carry in their inventory -- and hence subject to capital tax -- rather substantial items that I understand on average turn over once every eight months. I appreciate that varies in some respects from dealer to dealer and from one piece of equipment to another, but I understand that on average that is the correct number they supply.

Carrying a large inventory for an eight-month period means they are subject to capital tax on something that is a detriment to them, particularly because of the nature of their business. So in trying to deal with their constituency and to provide service and equipment available to their constituency, namely, the farm community, they are being penalized. It is my understanding that this amendment to the Corporation Tax Act does not take care of that problem.

I know the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue is aware of the problem, and my query and concern is this: Has he had any opportunity to discern whether out of this act he has the ability to take care of that problem through another route, through regulations or whatever? If not, in what way is he going to take care of what I feel are the legitimate concerns of the farm equipment dealers in this province of ours?

Other than that, we will be supporting this bill on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the chance to respond briefly to the point raised by the honourable member. I believe we even raised it in a previous debate of this type because the farm equipment dealers had come to see me formally and a number of them I know personally had raised it with me and explained their own difficulty. This has been exacerbated by the fact that very few farmers are making farm equipment purchases for economic reasons that have been bad for years and are gradually growing worse. Their argument was that if there ever was a time for the government to assist the dealers in any way, it was now.

I wish I could reply more positively to the query from the honourable member. As a part of our budget preparations, we reviewed the matter very carefully, and I undertook both formal and informal discussions. The advice of my officials responding to my interest in the matter was that we could not proceed in any fair and equitable way to deal with it at this time. Personally, I am still giving it consideration, but our review did not turn up with a positive response as far as they were concerned.

Mr. Ashe: I am not sure that is an answer that is satisfactory to the farm community in general and, more important in this sense, to the farm equipment dealers in Ontario who are trying their utmost to support the farm community.

We are talking about an industry, as acknowledged by the Minister of Revenue himself, that is having difficult times, which puts further onus upon the farm equipment dealers. Frankly, this is an extremely unfair situation, and I hope the Minister of Revenue with his Treasury hat on at the very next opportunity will look at the plight of the farm equipment dealers in Ontario and take care of this problem.

Mr. Foulds: We will be supporting the bill because by and large it is a housekeeping bill that aligns the provincial legislation with federal legislation. I am sure the Treasurer is aware, as are the members of the other parties in the Legislature, that by and large this party does not feel that corporations bear their fair share of the taxation burden of the province.

One of the things that surprised me in the hearings that my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and I have been enjoying before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs was that, lo and behold, two of the major insurance companies in Ontario indicated they had not paid corporation income tax in Canada for as long as they could remember. One could remember having paid corporation income tax in the United States as recently as 1972; the other could remember paying corporation income tax in the United Kingdom at the current time.

When such situations arise, it seems to me there is a very strange taxation system in this country that favours the louder voices of society rather than the quieter voices. Aside from the provision which continues the assurance that credit unions will be taxed at a lesser rate than other corporations, this bill does very little to improve the general progressivity of our taxation system in the province. We all know the revenues accumulated by the Treasurer today from individuals as a proportion of the total revenues of the province -- I cannot recall the percentage off the top of my head at the moment -- has escalated enormously in comparison to the revenue garnered from individuals as a proportion of the budget some 15 years ago, when I first arrived in this Legislature. It is certainly more than 20 or 25 years ago. This bill does nothing to help reverse that, even in a small way.

The Treasurer took a small step in his previous budget when he increased the rate from 15 per cent to 15.5 per cent, and this bill assures the continuation of that 15.5 per cent. We are supporting the bill for those very modest and minuscule reasons, but we point out to the Treasurer that he does have instruments available to him to increase the progressivity of the taxation system in Ontario. The Treasurer has not taken the opportunity to do that in two budgets.

In the previous sales tax bill, we could argue that, although he has taken one step by raising the exemption on prepared foods, which is a progressive step, he has taken some less progressive steps, and I regret that very much. To be fair to the Treasurer, I think one of his objectives, that one can "see through a glass, darkly," to use a biblical phrase subsequently used by Ingmar Bergman to title one of his films, is to have some consistency in taxation legislation. We agree with those steps, but even there, as the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) pointed out in the last bill, there are some ambivalences and inconsistencies.

17:00

In short, we will support this bill on second reading. We do not do so because it is a great, progressive piece of legislation, but basically it does not do any more harm than the present taxation already renders upon the citizens of this province. I will leave it at that.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak on this bill?

Miss Stephenson: I rise to participate in this debate to tell the Treasurer what I guess he already knows. We are supportive of the housekeeping aspect of the bill. However, I suggest to the Treasurer that housekeeping is probably not necessary at this point. What is necessary, it seems to me, is a very critical examination of the whole taxation structure, and possibly there might be an examination of both personal and corporate income tax to ensure we are being fair and equitable in the use of our taxing powers in Ontario.

It is troublesome to learn that the percentage of revenues raised in this province from personal income tax has risen from 64 per cent to 72 per cent of the combined corporate and personal tax revenues, whereas the share of corporate taxation revenues has declined from 36 per cent to 28 per cent in that 10-year period as well.

I realize it has not happened entirely overnight, but there has been a very significant shift in that percentage within the past 16 months. I think the Treasurer knows that, and that one of the reasons is the very dramatic increase in tax he imposed last October on those who pay personal income tax in Ontario.

However, I suggest that if the concept of modifying the Corporations Tax Act in the province is not anathema to him, it might be even more desirable if he would look with favour upon a real examination and perhaps at really reforming the tax structure within the province. That is an exercise he might undertake with enthusiasm right now. What the Treasurer is doing here is simply tinkering. I do not think it is going to make a heck of a lot of difference, even though it brings us into line with the federal taxation principles, and that is appropriate.

Instead of doing this, I wish the Treasurer would suggest to us today that his activity for the next several months is going to be the careful examination and consultation that would lead to the kind of modification of the income tax situation, both corporate and personal, which would ensure that the principles of equity and fairness were going to be the hallmarks of the taxation system in Ontario.

I do not get that feeling from the tinkering here. I think we could get it if the Treasurer were to say he would enthusiastically embrace that suggestion and begin the process, perhaps within the next week, because he has so much time to do this. It is the kind of activity he might enjoy. It would certainly be beneficial for everyone in the province if that kind of critical look were to be taken at present.

It is a little difficult for us in Ontario and a little. difficult for them as the government to look at what is happening in terms of the burden upon the middle-income taxpayer in this province as compared to what is likely to be happening to the middle-income taxpayer as a result of tax reform south of the border. I do not know that the comparison is going to be very favourable for Ontario, and I do not want to see us subjected to truly odious comparisons, but that is what will happen if the trend which has been established, and which has increased dramatically in the past year, continues within Ontario.

I have no desire to overtax corporations in any way, because I recognize that putting an undue burden on them is likely to ensure that the province is less attractive for the establishment of corporations and thus new employment. Therefore, one must strike the careful balance which will ensure that we do not impede the economic advance of the province by burdensome taxation, but that there is a fairness which must be established and maintained.

We had that here for a long time. We seem to be slipping, and I do not want that to continue to happen. I am sure the Treasurer does not want that either and that he will attempt to do something about it.

I believe the people of this province feel very strongly that something needs to be done related to taxation and that it is time for that activity to be carried out. Although I will support this bill, it is not going to do anything helpful in that direction.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak on this bill? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the indications of support from the two opposition parties. I am particularly interested that the critic for the official opposition is interested in tax reform. She is aware that Michael Wilson has made quite a clarion call, particularly in response to American initiatives, that we must do the same thing here. I am glad to report that we feel he is involving the provinces. We want to be involved and we are prepared to go independently on tax reform as well. I have been in touch with Marc Lalonde and Ben Benson and hope to have them assist me. No, I am just kidding.

I can assure members that over the next year all the provinces and the federal government will be working intensely, looking at the sort of tax reform the member has proposed. I think all of us agree it is time for a thorough review of the situation to strengthen justice, equity and simplicity. We want to do this without injuring our revenues from federal sources, even though those have been substantially injured in the past 16 months since the government of Canada changed to Conservative auspices. It has cost the provinces substantially, and we regret that very much.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, that was two years ago. The minister has a short memory.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On this note of equanimity, if not agreement, I thank the opposition for its support. I agree that the bill is not very far-reaching, but it makes some improvements we think are worth while.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill implements an amendment arising out of the budget of May 13, as well as some administrative and technical amendments.

In the budget last October, a personal income surtax was introduced for the 1986 taxation year. The surtax is at a rate of three per cent on basic Ontario income tax in excess of $5,000. I should say in parenthesis that means on incomes of more than approximately $50,000. The bill extends this surtax in its present form to the 1987 and subsequent taxation years.

Administrative and technical amendments are also being made to bring the act in line with the Income Tax Act of Canada, in accordance with the tax collection agreement signed with the federal government.

17:10

Mr. Ashe: Once again, I rise. I indicated to the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue last week that I would be drawing my frustrations, concerns and damnation to his attention on each and every one of the budget bills. Frankly, I forgot on the last bill, so I will have to do it twice as vociferously on this one; that is, to damn him, which I do not think in the context I have used it is out of order.

I find it astounding that it was more than five months since the day the Treasurer stood in his place to bring down the budget before he called the first budget bill. I find that very distasteful. I find that thwarts the principle of the operation of the democratic Legislature. I hope he will plan the order of business in a little better fashion following his next budget.

Having said that, I have a few very specific questions and concerns to draw to the minister's attention in Bill 28. I hope he is not going to absent himself for too long. He will have the opportunity to answer some of my questions a little later on.

The very first rather comical one is that we have a bill of some number of sections with some substance and otherwise, but when I read the last two sections of the bill, I find the only thing in this piece of legislation which comes into effect upon royal assent is the following: "The short title of this act is the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1986." That is the only thing that comes into effect on royal assent. It seems rather funny that a whole bill, which is made up of many sections and five pages, would go to the trouble of even making a reference to the fact that this act, except sections 1 to 11, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. I just read the dissent to that coverage. It is just a little point, not particularly relevant to any substance in the bill, but it seems rather funny.

My main concerns about the Act to amend the Income Tax Act really carries on from the discussions of a few moments ago by my honourable colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), talking about the unfairness of the tax system, the inequities within the tax system and the need to stop tinkering, which happens again in this bill, and get down to some legitimate tax reform.

It is nice that we finally have had our neighbours to the south give Canadians generally and Ontarians a little push to do that. The change of two years ago and the Honourable Michael Wilson becoming Minister of Finance brought something to that process on a Canadian basis, but it will happen, it can happen and it must happen. I am glad to hear the Treasurer has indicated he is quite prepared, quite willing and looks forward to dialogue with the government of Canada in this regard to, I hope, favourably change our total tax system and particularly our income tax system, because with our tax collection agreement, we are so fully tied in with the rules and regulations that are made by the government of Canada.

If we wish to opt to have our own income tax system, as has been done in the province immediately to our east, it becomes another bureaucracy, another rather expensive collection process. The reason I know that is because the previous administration, which was somewhat unhappy for a few years with some of the policies that were being enacted by the former administration in Ottawa, looked at the options, the pluses and the minuses, of setting up our own tax system. Although it gave us much more flexibility and much more room to set tax policy within this province as it relates to income tax, it was going to be very costly to administer. We came to the conclusion that was not another burden the Ontario taxpayer, in any event, should be asked to bear.

I am very concerned at one of the highlights, if I can use the word "highlights," which sounds like a positive thing, in a negative way, within this Bill 28. It is reminiscent of how income tax in Canada first started. It was brought forth as temporary legislation to raise funds to fight a world war. World wars come and world wars go and skirmishes come and skirmishes go, but it appears that income taxes go on for ever once they are in place.

A short time ago, I guess about two years ago now, there was put into effect a surtax of three per cent on provincial income tax in excess of $5,000. That was meant to be temporary, and there was a particular reason for it at the time. There was to be an end to that; that was supposed to happen. Lo and behold, the honourable Treasurer has espoused that now in Bill 28 and, sitting as the Minister of Revenue, is making it somewhat more permanent. It talks about an indefinite period, but we all know indefinite means it will go on for ever until the whole thing is restructured. I find that somewhat distasteful.

Where has it impacted? We are not concerned that those who are earning $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 and up a year are going to pay an extra surcharge. We do not have any great problem with that, frankly. Some would suggest it is the people at both ends of the earning spectrum who may have opportunities not to pay any taxes at all or to pay little taxes. I do not think there is too much sympathy there, since a surtax on nothing is still nothing.

When we are talking about a provincial income tax level of $5,000, we are talking about what I would still call in many instances a middle-class person. Some would suggest it is getting towards mid-to-upper middle class. That is fine, but I suggest that the majority of Ontarians fall into that category or close to it, and this is another bit of pressure on them, their income and their way of life in Ontario.

As I understand it, that particular change alone, along with the normal slight change in the Ontario tax reduction limit, which affects the people at the lower end of the provincial tax frame who do not have to pay any income tax -- and that limit went up slightly for the current taxation year as it is wont to do each year -- will mean additional revenue on a full tax year to the Treasurer of some $11 million. That is $11 million less in the spendable pockets, if I can put it that way, of middle-class Ontarians.

This is another tinkering with the tax system. If the Treasurer wanted to be fair, he should have had the guts to change the whole rate from 48 per cent to 48.1 per cent or 48.2 per cent, or whatever was needed to give him the same revenue, and leave it there on the basis that the whole tax system was going to be reviewed in very short order. I sincerely hope it will be.

There were previous references made, when we were discussing the corporation tax amendments in Bill 27, to the relative amount of taxation being carried in Ontario by the corporate taxpayer versus the personal income taxpayer. There is no doubt that the Ontario government is relying more and more on personal income taxes for its sources of revenue in this province. Of course, that has happened even more since the onerous increases in taxes generally that were put on by the Treasurer's first budget in 1985.

To give an example of only the past two years, in 1984, 24.8 per cent of total government revenues came from income tax. By this year's budget, which we are now implementing, 26.5 per cent comes from personal income tax. That is close to a two per cent increase from just under 25 per cent to 26.5 per cent. That is a significant additional burden for taxpayers in Ontario.

If we want to put that into the total context of looking at corporate income tax and personal income tax -- and this is a much longer time frame and I am not altogether blaming the Treasurer for this movement; it has happened progressively in the past decade -- since 1976 revenues raised from personal income taxation have risen from 64 per cent to 72 per cent of combined corporate and personal income taxes. On the other side of that, the decline in the share of corporate taxation from that same pool has been from 36 per cent to 28 per cent in 1986.

17:20

It is fair to say that in a decade we have seen a considerable growth in taxation generally; in this case, personal income tax revenue that has gone from all other sectors on to the average Ontarian. This has happened here in personal income taxes, given the increases in the past couple of years alone. It has been indicated right across the board in other forms of taxation that each and every Ontarian pays each and every day. We see it in tobacco taxes, alcoholic beverage taxes and in general sales taxes.

I cannot impress upon the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue more that I think Ontarians, as a class of people, middle-class Ontarians -- again, I keep stressing that the majority of Ontarians fall and strive to fall into that category -- are getting to the point where they are more than concerned about the tax burden they are trying to carry.

We are not too far removed from tax revolt. That may be too strong, but those things can happen. Who would ever have thought that there would be a property tax revolt in California a number of years ago? We all know what came out of that. They were not all good things for California. As I suggest, if we had a tax revolt here in Ontario, it would not result in entirely good things for the province.

I hope the Treasurer or Minister of Revenue -- depending on what hat he is wearing at any given point -- and the Chairman of Management Board too, is listening to the concerns of taxpayers. These are not my concerns; I am only one voice trying to put before him some of the facts and numbers and the concerns generally of the burden Ontarians have been asked to bear.

As for the other items in the income tax amendment, I am favourably impressed with some of the other housekeeping-type changes and the appeal-type changes that are to the benefit of the taxpayer in getting Supreme Court challenges and so on to start sooner; and that interest will not be accessible in smaller amounts. Again, we all know that when one starts sending bills, notices, etc., and following up on small sums, it costs more than it collects.

I am pleased also with section 10 of the bill, which permits the minister to accept and release security for the payment of taxes, interest and penalties, which is similar to authority for other statutes the Minister of Revenue administers.

I close my remarks on this bill by stating that we have some concerns with it. We think this bill has done nothing towards bringing further fairness into the income tax system; in fact, it brings further punishment on middle-class Ontario.

Knowing that the Treasurer is concerned about middle-class Ontario, we hope he will take our constructive criticism, guidance and suggestions to heart and will do something about it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions for the member for Durham West?

Mr. Foulds: I am very sympathetic to the position put forward by the previous speaker about increasing the progressivity of the taxation system and removing the burden of taxation on the individual and ordinary Ontarian. What surprises me is that my recollection is --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, is the member on his -- okay.

Mr. Foulds: I am leading up to the question I want to put to the member. He indicated in his remarks that the burden has shifted. I think the figures he used in one case were from 1976 onward.

I recollect that the previous speaker was the Minister of Revenue in a previous administration. Without wanting him to betray any of the confidentiality of cabinet -- he obviously was sworn to secrecy -- surely to goodness the previous administration could have taken some steps to reverse the trend that he as Minister of Revenue could see accumulating since 1976. I wonder whether the member will be so good as to indicate to us the steps he as Minister of Revenue and the previous administration took to remove the burden of taxation from what he calls the middle-class Ontarian, but I like to call the ordinary Ontarian, and even from those who have incomes of less than $20,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a comment on the honourable member's criticism that we did not proceed with the taxation bills earlier. I well recall when the Progressive Conservatives had the responsibility of government they would enact the tax changes at midnight after they were announced without any reference to the Legislature at all. For reasons that may seem obvious, we have changed it to when they are enacted, and in many instances in this budget we have postponed it until January 1, 1987.

There are a number of reasons for that. I felt the legislative program was going to be jammed this spring, as it was, with important and time-consuming debate involving extra billing and certain other pieces of legislation. I thought there would be a suitable time early in the resumed session when a debate on these matters would be appropriate, leading up to their enactment on January 1.

It is true a couple of the provisions, particularly the sales tax provisions, go into effect, I believe, 30 days after royal assent, but I do not apologize for any delay. It has given people an opportunity to express their views on the proposals, and members in the opposition parties and in the government party have responded to those. The member said he is going to castigate me for this on each bill. If he wants to, that is okay. I do not feel sensitive about it. I think it is reasonable and deliberate timing. Members have an opportunity to express their views. The Treasury is neither enriched nor depleted in any significant way because of the delay; so I do not agree with his objection.

Mr. Ashe: I will respond to the question and the point made. The Treasurer was doing fine until he said there was no significant impact on the Treasury one way or the other. I suggest he also identified at the same time one bill that does have significant impact on the Treasury -- in this case, in continuing income -- that is, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act. Some of the provisions do come into effect a short time after royal assent, including his grandiose increase in the exemption on fast food products from $1 to $2.

He is saving himself at least half a year's income in that regard. In my view, that is in itself significant. It may not be in the context of the way he looks at it, but it is. Granted, and I think I acknowledged this in my remarks, there is not a great deal of relevance to the current date, particularly with regard to Bill 27 and Bill 28, but I find the whole principle, that it takes more than five months even to call the first one, rather distasteful.

Getting back to the previous administration, I did speak to two indications of time frame. One was 1976-1986 and the other was the Ontario government relying more on income tax even in the past two years, from 1984 to 1986. That was the increase from 24. 8 per cent of total revenue to 26.5 per cent.

As far as the growing emphasis on personal income tax is concerned, it has been a concern of mine personally. As the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) well knows, the Minister of Revenue does not set tax policy, although he brings in the legislation and is responsible for the administration of the act. I did, on a regular basis, as I guess all members did, express concern of the growing income tax liability on the taxpayers of Ontario, but again one cannot always use the past as an excuse for the future.

17:30

Mr. Foulds: I have a number of points I want to make on this bill. I want to assure the Treasurer that the phrase "tax reform," which flows trippingly off the tongue of many members in this assembly and in other places, is not always the same term. I believe that tax reform as used by Michael Wilson could very well mean tax simplicity and tax benefits, not to the ordinary Canadian or Ontarian but to what our party has traditionally called corporate welfare bums and those with louder voices.

When we go into these uncharted waters of tax reform, we should be very careful. We need to do it, and I think there should be major tax reform, but I want to put it very clearly on the record that the thrust of what this party is talking about when it talks about tax reform is removing an undue burden of personal taxes and an undue dependence by government on personal taxes and legitimately increasing the sources of revenue from other sources, including incomes.

There has to be a differentiation between personal taxes and income tax. If there is a good income tax system, a true income tax system, whether personal, corporate or whatever, then that is, by and large, a pretty progressive way to tax, because it is based on ability to pay. Unprogressive taxes tend to be things such as sales tax and Ontario health insurance plan premiums. In the case of OHIP premiums, those who have to pay them directly pay on the basis not of an ability to pay but on the basis of a lump sum, no matter what their incomes or sources of revenue are.

Therefore, I want to spell out very clearly in this House that when I talk about tax reform on behalf of the New Democratic Party, that is something substantially different, I strongly suspect, from what the member for Durham West talks about when he talks about tax reform. We will be supporting this bill, and the reason we are supporting this bill is that when I presented it to our caucus for approval, I dubbed it the "making permanent the make the rich pay some taxes amendment."

Nothing is permanent in this world, but this bill confirms the surtax established in the most recent budget, which was basically an attempt to ensure at the provincial level that people did not use all the loopholes to escape from paying income tax at all. We all know establishing it at the provincial level is not the best way to do it. Establishing it at the provincial level has -- I am trying to think of the right word -- imposed in some cases a tax on people we did not expect it to hit.

Another thing that needs to be said is that there are people who have substantial incomes, substantial wherewithal, on which to live, no matter how they define that, whether as income or otherwise, who continue not to pay income tax. I find that disturbing. All in all, this bill has introduced an element of progressivity into the taxation system, and for that reason we will be supporting it.

Miss Stephenson: I rise to participate in the debate on Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, with mixed feelings. I am pleased there are some modifications within this act regarding the Income Tax Act of this province, but I believe the Treasurer had the opportunity to do something much more significant and has not considered doing it at this point.

The Treasurer has suggested he is awaiting the results of the deliberations within the federal Department of Finance before considering seriously any action related to income tax activity in Ontario. I understand he does not want to do anything that would contradict, oppose or in any way impede or minimize whatever beneficial effect there may be for taxpayers in the province by modifying the Income Tax Act here, but it is unfortunate that this is so slow in coming.

As the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) has stated so clearly, it is obvious that the burden of tax is falling extremely heavily in this province upon the middle-income earners in a way that is quite out of character with the traditional history of Ontario. I remind the Treasurer that the Fraser Institute has calculated this year that the average family in this province now spends within a hair of 50 cents out of every dollar earned on some form of taxation. That has been a very considerable increase.

Mr. Foulds: That is because the Fraser Institute supporters do not pay their fair share.

Miss Stephenson: I am not sure the member can suggest that at all.

A very considerable amount of that increase has occurred relatively recently. The day on which the taxpayers of Ontario started working for themselves instead of working for governments at whatever level was --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a depressing way to put it.

Miss Stephenson: It may be depressing but it is factual, and perhaps we should all think about it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, it is not.

Miss Stephenson: Yes, it is.

That day was June 27, almost the end of the sixth month, which is several days later than it had been for many years before. The Treasurer has suggested that there are some people who have not been paying their fair share. I suggest to him that the group he is talking about probably pays significantly more than almost any other group in this province and has done so with regularity and accuracy for many years.

That is not the matter before us. The matter before us is the bill the Treasurer has introduced, which does precious little except to continue an old Liberal tradition, that is, to introduce a temporary tax and then to ensure it is enacted into perpetuity. They have done this on many occasions in the past. It is an interesting activity that is indulged in by leaders of the governing party with some regularity. As I said to the Treasurer, I have not decided whether we have here a Mackenzie King model or a Trudeau model, but obviously he is following the examples of those who have gone before him at the federal level.

It is an unhappy thought that those people who work so diligently in this province to try to provide for their families, and to ensure that the economic future of the province is sustained, are increasingly burdened with taxes that may eventually stultify some of the creativity and capacity of those people to do the kinds of things they would, given their own initiative, carry out on behalf of their fellow citizens in Ontario.

17:40

I hope the Treasurer, instead of waiting for whatever tax reform comes out of Ottawa -- no matter what the definition is that the member for Port Arthur does not like -- will begin the process of trying to determine the ways in which he, as the Treasurer of Ontario, can make the tax system fairer, more equitable and simpler for the citizens of Ontario.

I disagree totally with the member for Port Arthur. The fact that the tax system in this province has become so cumbersome, so complicated, so imbued with all sorts of peculiar little directions one way and another, is not particularly helpful to anyone, and I think it is probably least helpful to the Treasurer in terms of collecting money in the way it should be done, fairly and equitably.

I suggest strongly that simplification of the tax system is one of the activities in which he might become gainfully employed right now while awaiting whatever it is that the federal Minister of Finance determines is going to be done for the federal tax system.

One might even suggest there might be a reasonable direction to be pursued in the thought that Ontario might collect its own income tax. It would be a major departure, but I know the Treasurer has made that kind of suggestion on at least one or two occasions. I am aware that it would provide for a greater degree of flexibility on the part of the government of Ontario if that were carried out in so far as ensuring that the programs that the government feels are appropriate are funded through that mechanism.

I do not think the Treasurer can hide very long behind Bill 28. I do not think, for example, that he can use this as any kind of suggestion that he has done anything very dramatic towards improving the income tax situation in Ontario. I am not sure the member for Port Arthur's favourite activity, soaking the rich, and I am not at all sure that some people who might fall within that category could be construed as rich these days, is entirely the kind of philosophy the Treasurer wishes to leave as the basis upon which taxation that is fair and equitable is carried out within Ontario.

We will support this little, tiny tinkering mechanism which has been introduced by the Treasurer because of the fact we are hopeful the Treasurer, having committed himself to considering seriously the tax system in Ontario, once he has heard what Mr. Wilson is going to do, will carry that out. I would only urge him to begin that consideration before he knows what Mr. Wilson is going to do. Do I understand it is supposed to be next week when he finds out?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Miss Stephenson: It is? Which day? A week today?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Hallowe'en night.

Miss Stephenson: I see. That does not give him very much time, but I would be hopeful that he has already begun the activity which is necessary in order to try to find a way to relieve the burden from the middle-income earners in this province -- and the lower-income earners -- in a way which is going to give them some encouragement and stimulate their interest in becoming more productive and more economically supportive of the province, so that all of us may benefit as a result of that kind of reform.

Reform is necessary and this is not reform, but we shall support this at present.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to make a few comments on the bill, particularly in reference to the revenue inflow to the government, whether the government really needs it and what it is doing with it. I also have a few comments related to the farm community and how it is being treated with some of the revenue the province gets.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member has to be kidding.

Mr. Stevenson: This all relates to income tax revenue; there is no doubt about that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How we spend money is not in the bill.

Mr. Stevenson: I am just passing comments on how the money goes.

I look at the Treasurer's budget and I see the significance of personal income tax to the budget of Ontario. I have not worked this out over the past two budgets, but it appears to me that income tax is becoming an increasing share of the inflow of funds to the province.

In the revenues to the provincial government in the past two years -- and I look at the comparison between the last budget of our government, that of the former Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in 1984, and this government's -- there is an increase in personal income tax revenue of $1.7 billion.

As we are aware, I am sure this budget most certainly does not underestimate the revenue of the government. We know there is a sizeable nest egg being held over in the Treasurer's back pocket to hand out as he sees fit in the next few months. I do not doubt that a slice of that approximately $800-million nest egg is also coming from personal income tax.

When we look at the size of the revenue in this year's budget plan, almost $8 billion of the $30 billion in total revenues coming into the province comes from personal income tax. When we look at the average family in Ontario and see the tax burden on it, in light of the major slice the Treasurer took out of the income of the average taxpayer in his first budget, it really starts to hurt many of our middle-income people.

Having not been here today because of being in committee, I do not know what examples have been given. It has been calculated, and it may already have been said today, that the average income earner in Ontario works till Wednesdays at 2 p.m. to pay his total taxes, and the big chunk goes in income tax to the governments of Ontario and Canada. For the rest of the week, if he is fortunate enough to be a five-day-a-week person, he has a chance to make some money for himself and/or his family.

In light of what the government is doing with the money and the fact that over the last two years it has had a $5-billion increase in total revenue, a 22 per cent increase in two years, and if one includes the $800-million nest egg that is in the Treasurer's back pocket, it goes up beyond that -- I have not worked it out, but I expect it is in the order of a 25 per cent increase in revenue to this government in two years -- and it becomes one of the biggest windfalls any government has ever had in the history of this province --

17:50

When we bring that back to the average income earner in the province and ask how many people have 22 or 25 per cent more disposable income today than they had two years ago, we find there are very few. That is the situation with this government. When we look at the government as a business or an individual or a family, look at its budget and try to picture it in the light of how families or small businesses in this province have to operate, we need to ask how many are fortunate enough to have a 22 to 25 per cent windfall in two years and have the benefit of disposing of take-home pay of that amount, to use for what are hoped to be useful purposes. There are not many who have had that fortune. The Treasurer, of course, is very fortunate to have happened upon the scene when these sorts of revenues were rolling in and the economy was rolling.

Each one of us as individuals does not look so carefully when the Treasurer takes the axe to another corner of our pocketbook. We tend to look the other way. We do not tend to notice as much as when we are in a recession, as we were in 1982 when the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) had to try to deal with very difficult financial situations in government and with individuals and companies around the province.

When we look at the increases in personal income tax in the Treasurer's budget -- and these are not Tory figures or anything; they are right here for anyone to see -- we see personal income tax, as I say, up by $1.7 billion in two years. If we go down through the other items, corporation tax is up by $80 million; gasoline tax is up by $40 million; motor vehicle fuel tax is up by $40 million; land transfer tax is up by $130 million; the Liquor Control Board of Ontario profits are up by $93 million; the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, which the government says it has frozen, are up by $67 million, and on and on. Do they need this surtax on personal income at this time? Does it need to be extended?

When the government puts the money away, as very few individuals can, and does not pay down the deficit, one wonders at the reasoning. The government is continuing to go out and borrow more and more money, while socking the average taxpayer by continuing this surtax to keep up revenues. It really makes one wonder about what useful purpose this serves.

With that comparison of the government with the average taxpayer, there is no question this government has it much better than some of the poor saps it is going after to get the money from. I hope individual taxpayers around the province will take a serious look at this budget compared to their own personal budget and see what this government is doing to them.

The Acting Speaker: Any questions or comments? Do any other members wish to speak on this bill? The member for -- is it Wentworth?

Mr. Dean: Soon to be Wentworth East, according to redistribution, but right now we are all kinds of Wentworth.

I do not intend to reiterate many of the things my colleagues have been saying, but I think it is important when we are discussing the proposals for income tax increases or maintenance at the high level, to underline what the government is doing through the Treasurer's insistence on the maintenance of the surtax in particular. A surtax is on top of everything else. One could talk about the other elements of the income tax take, but I believe they have been covered very well by my colleagues the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe).

The real point I want to make, and I do not have to spend a long time making it, is that the portion of the population which will be impacted upon by the continuation of the surtax -- and who knows, maybe somebody will get a bright idea some time to raise the surtax once we are accustomed to this level -- is exactly that portion of people who are having a difficult time keeping their incomes abreast of increasing costs.

By and large, those are the people who will give leadership and will provide through their own efforts and their own innovation, a stimulus to the economy by -- how shall I put it? -- their entrepreneurial activities and by their willingness to take part and lead the community. Many of them are average taxpayers who are going to ask, "Where in the world is the government's appetite for more of my take-home pay going to end?"

I know each of us individually as members have occasions when we say, "I wish there was more of a particular government program in my riding or of a particular project which I think is very worth while, even if it is not in my riding." This is a natural feeling that will come if we are truly representing our constituency, whether it be a geographic or an interest constituency.

At the same time, as members of the Legislature, we cannot help but spend a great deal of time, when we do have a reflective moment, wondering how we can continue to be responsible legislators and not call for a halt to or a very strict screening of the ever-increasing demands on the public purse. I do not have to answer for those things, because that is the Treasurer's job.

It should be pointed out to the Treasurer and to his colleagues in the cabinet, however, that at a time when Ontario is in one of the better economic periods it has experienced for the past decade, it rings a little hollow with some of us who have been in the practice of working hard for our money to see that the government is not taking this opportunity to retire some of the deficit or at least to make the books balance on a current basis. I recognize that the Treasurer is by nature a very frugal person. I will not say stingy, because I do not think that is right.

Mr. Stevenson: Cheap.

Mr. Dean: Cheap? Is that guy a chicken, or is the Treasurer speaking?

In any case, he is not a person who wantonly throws away money. However, I think he may have been impeded in his natural good intentions by some of the calls that have come upon the Treasurer in his capacity as the watchdog of the public purse and has been unable to muster enough support among his colleagues to bring into effect a balanced budget or one even headed towards a balance.

18:00

I remind the members that when the present leader of my party was Treasurer, he was able to decrease the amount of deficit for the year, heading towards a balanced budget. Unfortunately, we have not seen that in the two budgets the present Treasurer has brought in. It has been a source of great disappointment to me, personally as well as politically, because I did regard the Treasurer, in spite of any shortcomings he may have, which are not evident, as a person who was careful with a dollar.

That is the only way we can begin to come to grips with the fairly heavy tax burden -- I might say excessive burden -- that the middle-of-the-road population in Ontario is being asked to bear. One could say reduce the tax, and that would be very desirable. If, as the Treasurer says, he cannot reduce the tax, the other thing is to reduce the expenditure. With the kind of windfall tax revenue the present government has fallen into through no effort of its own, it should be quite conceivable that the Treasurer could whittle away at some of the programs.

Knowing he is going to get additional revenue from the good luck of prosperity at this time, he can easily minimize the surcharge. If he cannot actually take the surtax off, if it is not possible to remove the surtax, it would be a matter of great comfort for people to know that he was thinking of the welfare of the ordinary taxpayer by decreasing it to one per cent, a nominal amount, but I think it should be removed.

I offer him two suggestions in the matter of this tax surcharge. One is to take it off. The other is that, if he insists that it has to stay on, it should be applied specifically to the reduction of the accumulated deficit. That would make many of the people who are going to be saddled with this extra tax feel a lot more comfortable about being asked to pay it, because they will know that in doing it they will be getting rid of a charge against the province and will not have to pay interest next year on a debt they have not paid off this year.

Again, I know the Treasurer is somebody who does look to the next generation and is not thinking only of himself. We must remember we are going to build up an ever-increasing debt load and an ever-increasing call for money to pay that debt and any interest on it for the generation that comes after us if we do not have responsible financial management now.

Whether it is correct for the government to rely on income tax to an ever-increasing degree to pay the expenses of the government of Ontario is a moot point. I am sure it was thought a very fair one when it was first brought in 70 years ago, or whenever it was first instituted, because it represented, by being a graduated tax, a contribution from people who were supposed to be able to pay.

We are now relying so much on the large middle group of income earners to finance the expenditures of government that before long some of those people are likely to ask: "Why should I knock myself out earning more income? Why should I put in that extra week's work, that extra hour every day, or risk my capital, that extra amount, if I am going to get socked in the end by having an ever-increasing amount of it stripped from me for tax purposes."

The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) described graphically how much of the week and the year we are working for ourselves. It is getting to be less and less of the time. I know this is not the time to get into a discussion on tax reform, but there is a need for it.

An hon. member: It is as good a time as any.

Mr. Dean: I hear one of my colleagues saying it is as good a time as any. I will leave tax reform for others to cover. I am sure it is on everybody's lips these days, and it may mean a different thing in different people's conceptions.

I will summarize, Mr. Speaker, because I know you cannot maintain your present level of interest for ever, by saying the Treasurer is wrong in continuing this three per cent surtax on provincial income tax. A tax on a tax is never very acceptable, and I seriously ask him to consider changing it.

Mr. Barlow: I am pleased to join in the debate to discuss Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. Like my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), who has just finished speaking about the three per cent surtax on provincial income tax in excess of $5,000, I do not agree -- in fact, I strongly disagree -- that this tax should be continued at this time. It has been in place to serve a particular purpose. There was a need for it, but it is something that cannot go on indefinitely. It must come to an end, and I see no reason why it should not end right away. Then we can get on and reform the whole tax system and bring in the proper forms of taxation and the revenue required to run a province the size of Ontario.

There are other changes that fall under this bill. The whole structure of taxation has to be reconsidered by this government. It is something that after today's announcement -- and I do not know whether there has been any information made available. I have not seen anything of Mr. Wilson's Ottawa proposal yet, so I do not know how it will affect Ontario, but it is an opportunity for Ontario to look at its overall taxing structure, both income tax and other forms of taxation. We will all look forward to seeing that come out in tonight's and tomorrow's press so that we can properly analyse it and see how it will fit in with Ontario's needs to raise the revenue to carry on the programs that have been in place and the new ones coming on stream by this and previous governments and on into the future.

The Income Tax Act has been in place for lo these many years and has been amended on many occasions. Some amendments have been for the good and some have been detrimental to the so-called middle-income earner, the one who is particularly hard hit by all forms of income tax.

The form this government has seemed to develop, not only of income tax but also in its tinkering with taxation all through its budget bills and the two budgets it has brought in, is something that has to come to an end. This is probably as good a time as any for it to end. All forms of taxation have to be understandable to the public and all forms of taxation must be brought in so they are fair to all those who are footing the bill to run the province.

I wanted to make these few comments on this particularly important piece of legislation and let the Treasurer know how the people of Cambridge feel about his proposals for income tax changes.

18:10

Mr. Foulds: I want to ask the member to define "middle-income earner."

Mr. Barlow: I appreciate the opportunity to define middle-income earner. One would almost have to say those people who earn between $15,000 and $25,000 are considered middle income at this time. People who fall into that category are the ones who have to be protected.

Mr. Andrewes: At this time of day it is often difficult to keep the debate going, particularly with such a small audience.

I would like to seize on the opportunity to welcome Dr. Pengelly. I am always glad to see him in the gallery even if he is watching from behind my back.

I had the pleasure of travelling to southwestern Ontario today. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) was not there to welcome me to his part of the world but I was there nevertheless. I was in Chatham speaking to a group who are very concerned about tax bills and other things, but more particularly about palliative care. However, on the way down and on the way back, I was treated to various news reports about the proposals for revising taxes by the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, and particularly about his tax reform of the Income Tax Act.

What he is saying, in effect, is that he intends to lower income tax, to close some of the loopholes on corporate exemptions, to shift some of the burden that is now on the individual taxpayer over to the corporate side and to broaden the base of the sales tax. It sounds very familiar and it sounds almost like it is the same value-added tax that was ringing around the halls in Ottawa for some time prior to the last budget.

Certainly the federal minister, Mr. Wilson, is convinced that he must make this move in a timely way for the benefit of Canadians. He is prompted to do this because the Reagan administration in the United States has done a substantial tax reform. He is concerned that, as a result of that reform in the US, potential Canadian investment may find its way there rather than being placed in Canada.

We are told that in the US there are some six million taxpayers who are currently removed from the tax rolls. There has also been a dramatic shift away from personal income tax on to the corporate side, a shift which by the most recent calculation is significantly more than the Treasurer would gain from the tax amendments he has in this bill, about $100 billion in tax that has been shifted from the backs of individual taxpayers on to the corporate side.

Mr. Wilson went on to say he wanted an income tax system that would be fairer and easier to understand. All of us, certainly those of us who have attempted to sit down on April 29 each year to wrestle with our own tax returns, often without the benefit of those receipts we had so carefully placed in a file somewhere, which we cannot locate, applaud him on that count.

He also said tax reform would move towards a fairer tax system. I think it is important that the Treasurer seize on the opportunity to provide input into that federal debate. It is almost a must, since in its taxing system Ontario basically must piggyback on the methods by which the federal government does its tax assessment.

However, we do have a problem in Ontario. We can look forward to it -- if we can say look forward to -- but certainly we can anticipate, come next budget time, bills to amend the Income Tax Act, the Gasoline Tax Act, the Tobacco Tax Act and the tax on alcohol and other budgetary reform measures, if one can call them that, and I would be less than candid if I really felt like calling them that, to take care of a plethora of promises the government still has on its plate, a menu of promises that it offered to people of this province during the election campaign of 1985.

There were promises such as the banning of Ontario health insurance plan fees, a promise that, in my view, will cost in excess of $900 million; a provincially funded dental plan, with no estimate of the cost there; what will no doubt be a substantial alteration in the fee structure payable to doctors in the province as a result of Bill 94; daily commitments made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) towards that jurisdiction; and financial commitments made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), for which he has some difficulty in finding sufficient cash flow to meet.

I am reminded it was only about three weeks ago that a number of mental health groups in Ontario held a press conference and publicly indicated that although they had been promised funding to fund housing projects in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and three northern communities, the Minister of Health had failed to meet those commitments. Oddly enough, it was the Hamilton-Toronto-Ottawa combination that held the press conference and it was those three communities whose appeal was answered. The other three are still waiting desperately for a commitment made to them in the spring of 1986, a commitment they proceeded on in good faith and which obviously met with some difficulty when dealt with at the Management Board of Cabinet.

18:20

However, it is interesting that the principle of the squeaky wheel, where a group can publicly embarrass the government and that public embarrassment is quickly dealt with by the good old chequebook, can still be applied. No doubt we may anticipate opportunities for substantial tax increases in the next budget as the Treasurer moves to meet the appointment his leader made with the public in the spring of 1985, to meet those obligations in a timely way leading up to the next provincial election.

Before I close my brief remarks --

Mr. McClellan: Before he nods off, before he dozes off.

Mr. Andrewes: Yes, please do not.

Mr. McClellan: Them, not me. They will be having trouble staying awake.

Mr. Foulds: It is the member for Lincoln we are worried about.

Mr. Andrewes: Before I conclude these brief comments, I urge the Treasurer, in altering his tax program, whether through the provincial income tax or the other forms in the province, to look very seriously at the current level of taxation on alcoholic beverages. It is a matter that comes very close in terms of the Income Tax Act --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When you are in the liquor store every day, it must come to your attention.

Mr. Andrewes: Certainly, it is a matter that is brought to my attention on many occasions, particularly when one is talking to the tourist industry or when one happens to pass by a grape grower toiling in his field.

Mr. Foulds: Because of that, he cannot pay the income tax imposed by this act. Right?

Mr. Andrewes: As a result of the rather difficult taxing measures the province imposes on the finished product, he may find it somewhat difficult to meet his obligations to the Treasurer under Bill 28 and may find it difficult to meet his obligations to the Treasurer under other acts, such as the Gasoline Tax Act.

Mr. McClellan: How many acts can you think of? Quick.

Mr. Andrewes: There is the Tobacco Tax Act. It is on behalf of that community that I want to make an appeal to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is unconscionable delay. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is not going to be pleased. We will add this to the Premier's list.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Lincoln will address his remarks to the chair.

Mr. Andrewes: Through you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that community, I want to make an appeal to the Treasurer to consider --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the returning officer appointed in Lincoln?

Mr. Andrewes: They are appointed for life, are they not? No?

Mr. McClellan: That is what they thought, but it turned out to be only 42 years.

Mr. Andrewes: Are they offered the same retirement package? May I make that inquiry? Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the slight diversion. Perhaps I will offer my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) an opportunity to add to this debate.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer and government House leader indicated he had some remarks he wished to make. It is very close to 6:30 p.m. , and if the Treasurer wishes, I can move the adjournment of the debate at this time and begin my remarks on Monday. That would allow time for the Treasurer to make his comments. If that is not in order, I do not mind starting.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This unconscionable obstruction will not go unremarked.

I want to indicate the business for the coming week.

On Monday afternoon, October 27, we will continue with Revenue and Treasury bills. On Tuesday afternoon, we will commence second reading debate on Bill 134 and Bill 135, and following on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, if time permits, any Revenue or Treasury bills not completed on Monday. Then we will deal with Bill 107, legal aid; Bill 8, French language services, in committee of the whole; Bill 12, compensation for victims of crime; Bill 70, provincial offences; Bill 72, powers of attorney; Bill 128, employment standards. On Thursday morning, private members' public business stands in the names of Mr. Offer and Mr. McCague.

I would like to remind all members that the House will commence sitting from 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday, October 27.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

23 octobre 1986