Journal des débats 1986-oct-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Andrewes: Today marks an important day for all those who are committed to and believe in world peace. In the town of Assisi in Italy, Pope John Paul II has gathered together 160 of the world's religious leaders to pray for world peace. As part of the special event, the Pope has called on all people to lay down their arms in a worldwide 24-hour truce. We praise and join in the efforts of His Holiness.

With the peace and freedom we enjoy here in Ontario, it is often easy to forget the trouble and the strife so common in other parts of the world. Today is a day on which we who live in relative isolation from the conflicts of the world should reflect on our good fortunes and join His Holiness and his colleagues in their prayers.

ROBERT SMART CENTRE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to raise before members of this Legislature and particularly before the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) the grim situation that exists in the provision of services at the Robert Smart Centre in Ottawa where young people between the ages of 16 and 18, who are troubled young people, are supposed to be receiving service and where their care workers are on strike.

All but $30,000 of $2.7 million a year for the funding of the Robert Smart Centre comes from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and other agencies of the provincial government. The 53 workers have to provide day, night, weekend and holiday service and attempt to provide programs that are going to make a difference to the lives of their clients.

The turnover in staff at that centre, according to management, has been 30 per cent to 40 per cent annually. That is an indication of the kind of conditions they are working under and the pay levels they are getting. In the latest round of negotiations, the centre has offered a three per cent increase in salaries this year and three per cent next year.

The thing that startles me, and I think will startle other members of the Legislature, is to learn that the management at this centre has hired a professional negotiator to deal with 53 care givers. It requires the attention of the minister and the attention of the public in Ontario when our services are jeopardized in this way.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

Ms. E. J. Smith: I want to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate two London companies that have won nationwide awards, the Canada Award for Excellence.

The London Life Insurance Co. has won the gold medal for its excellence in production. Sterling Marking Products Inc. has won the silver medal for excellence of design. These two awards were won in a nationwide competition, and London was the only city in Canada to win two awards in this Canadian Chamber of Commerce competition.

I recommend to all members of the House the firm of Sterling Marking Products when the next election comes by. Its president, Bob Schram, will be more than happy to help members with election products for their campaigns.

RICK HANSEN

Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a great Canadian, world-renowned athlete Rick Hansen. As this House will know, Rick's Man in Motion world tour, in an effort to raise $10 million for spinal cord research and rehabilitation and wheelchair sports, is gaining great momentum. We witnessed evidence of this yesterday in Ottawa, where he was greeted by 5,000 supporters and received a most generous contribution of $1 million from the Canadian government.

As Rick's marathon crosses our great province, I urge not only this government but also all my colleagues in this House and all residents of Ontario to continue their show of support, both financial and moral, for this most courageous young Canadian.

With his relentless energy and exceptional attitude, Rick is an excellent role model for young people all over the world. I say to you, Rick, we are all behind you; keep up the great work.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) are aware that 2,000 teachers who have taken early retirement based on pension figures supplied by the Teachers' Superannuation Commission now find their pensions reduced by up to $160 a month because of an error in the original calculations made by the commission. To date, neither the government nor the commission has responded in substance to these retirees, who made an important life decision based on an erroneous calculation.

I want to remind the government of the purpose of the legislation. Just as the early retirement legislation I had a hand in helping frame earlier this year was intended to cope with a major problem in the surplus of teachers, which was making it very difficult for young teachers to find work --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right; that is the major problem.

Mr. Allen: Yes, and the problem has been significantly relieved. However, it was not intended that in the process, people would get hurt by bureaucratic error or lack of clarity in legislation.

In the name of fairness, will the government not ensure, by amending the legislation if necessary, that these retired teachers have their pensions restored to what they were told and believed they were entitled to?

In the light of what has happened, will the government not strengthen the perspective of planned participants in the public pension plan review currently under way and insist, for example, that Mr. Rowan, the one-man task force, consult with participants as well as administrators and financiers?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Ferraro: I rise very briefly today to thank publicly, on behalf of my constituents in Wellington South and many of the constituents in Wellington county, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my government. After 20 years, we have the commitment for a hospital redevelopment project. That includes $53 million.

The money is two thirds of the portion needed to complete the long-awaited hospital redevelopment. On behalf of all my constituents, I want to say publicly, thank God for the Liberals, thank God for this government and thank God for the money.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Bernier: As this House heard last Thursday, October 23, 1986, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced over CBC Radio the sale of Minaki Lodge. In addition, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) made a statement in the House following the Premier's announcement -- without, however, giving any specific details regarding that sale.

Is it the intention of the government to give Minaki Lodge away in the same way it virtually gave the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin? We have heard that the price agreed is $5 million for this approximately $30-million investment. If this is true, then the sale is obviously another massive Liberal giveaway, one that truly requires some scrutiny.

In view of the government's determination to hold a fire sale for any or all crown corporations, one must wonder whether anyone on that side of the Legislature has any true knowledge of sound business affairs. This is no commitment to northern Ontario; this is another Liberal insult to northern Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of all members, we have a number of distinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery today. I ask you to join me in recognizing the House of Commons agricultural committee from Westminster. They are Sir Richard Body, chairman; John Carlisle; David Harris; Andrew Stewart, and Thomas Torney. Joining the group is the British Consul General, Bryan Sparrow. Please join me in welcoming them.

13:42

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rose in this House a year ago -- on October 18, to be precise -- to inform honourable members that an independent audit of the forest management practices of the Ministry of Natural Resources would be carried out by a distinguished forestry expert from outside Ontario. I emphasized then that this independent review would be part of a comprehensive strategy to evaluate and update our forest management procedures and to provide greater public scrutiny of the processes of government.

I am proud to say that over the past year we have made considerable progress on that commitment. The practices of my ministry have been open to unprecedented public examination and review. I am confident that the result will be improved forest management techniques and administration and a strengthening of public confidence in our work and in the future of our valuable forest resource.

As honourable members know, I have already released to the public a report on forest management by the Provincial Auditor, as well as the ministry's response to that report. I have also made public the first five-year reviews of the first forest management agreements, or FMAs, in Ontario. I plan to release the second set of FMA reviews shortly, and the class environmental assessment hearing into the ministry's timber management practices will begin within the next few months.

Last month I made public a report, The Audit of Management of the Crown Forests of Ontario, conducted by Dr. Gordon Baskerville, dean of forestry at the University of New Brunswick. Since the House was in recess and I was anxious not to delay release of the report, it was made public at a news conference in Thunder Bay on September 4. On the same day, I released a document called The Forest Resources of Ontario, 1986, a report on the nature and extent of our forest estate prepared by ministry staff.

Since then my ministry has been preparing an action plan to respond to Dean Baskerville's report. In addition to our ongoing reviews of forest management in Ontario, I am pleased to table that action plan today. The day after release of his report, Dean Baskerville met with key foresters from the ministry in Thunder Bay for an all-day workshop. This month he met with the ministry team drawing up our action plan. His advice has been most helpful. My deputy minister and senior ministry staff have received suggestions on what should go into the action plan from all across the ministry, including field staff in the districts and the various regions.

However, before I talk about the plan itself, I would like to share some remarks made by Dean Baskerville at the Thunder Bay news conference. He said: "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound. The operation of the structures needs attention, mainly to ensure that what Ontario gets in the forest over time is indeed what Ontario is aiming for. The fundamental need is for the ministry to examine and refine what is essentially a sound approach."

To me, that means that we have our feet on solid ground. We need to shift our position or modify our stance in some areas, but we have a firm base on which to move.

The action plan deals with the five major issues which Dean Baskerville identified as requiring action. We have formulated a number of specific initiatives to meet those concerns. In a few cases, changes were already under way.

In all, there are some 16 parts to this action plan. I cannot take the time of the House to read all of them. Members will be receiving copies of the plan and a summary of the 16 initiatives. Therefore, I will highlight only some of the decisions we are taking.

We have placed firm targets on the changes to be made. For example, the Ontario wood supply model, which the ministry uses to determine harvest levels, will be modified to provide improved local projections. The new supply model will be in the hands of all field foresters by December 1987.

New information on timber volumes for areas of the existing natural forest, specific to the management unit level, will be available by December 1987. A current survey of the new, regenerated forest to determine areas, species and growth will be expanded to cover the whole province and completed by December 1988.

Beginning in 1987, all new timber management plans will contain clear statements of objectives that are measurable and attainable. A new forest production policy, taking into account the supply capability of Ontario's forests and the demands of industry, will be developed and completed by October 1988.

Another feature of this action plan is its use of experts from outside government. A group of ministry and forest industry persons under the chairmanship of Dr. James Kayll, director of forestry at Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, will establish more detailed criteria for forest stand allocation to ensure the best timber utilization. This is right in line with one of the recommendations in the recent report on resource-dependent communities in northern Ontario.

A panel of academics in the forestry field will advise the ministry on appropriate training for upgrading the expertise of our practising professionals.

A group headed by Dr. Robert Rosehart, president of Lakehead University, will evaluate the ministry's forest resource inventory, or FRI. The group will include environmentalists, academics and forest industry representatives.

Dean Baskerville said in his report that the FRI is a reasonable base as used in current forest management planning, but he noted that we have a public credibility problem with the inventory. It would be impractical physically to count every tree in the forests of Ontario. The key issue here is the validity of the ministry's techniques for assessing the forest inventory.

We are counting on Dr. Rosehart's committee to provide us with a definitive assessment of the forest resource inventory and recommend a process for verifying it on an ongoing basis.

As members can see, we have done a lot already, but some parts of this action plan involve further studies, which will be made public when they are completed. I would like to emphasize that these studies are needed to ensure that the changes we make are the right ones. I can assure members that we will take the appropriate steps when the results of these studies are in hand.

Dean Baskerville did not present us with a list of specific recommendations. He left it to the ministry to work out reasoned solutions to some complicated problems and he cautioned against quick, knee-jerk responses. We are mindful of that advice.

In conclusion, I draw members' attention to the breadth of this plan. The process of reform that we have set in motion is not mere tinkering. This plan is a major step forward. It will carry forest management in Ontario into the 21st century.

Mr. Bernier: I am pleased to respond to the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources on his action plan for forest management. I have to say that the road to Damascus has many conversions. For 42 years, we listened to that party say how bad the administration of the forests of this province was and how terrible and insensitive we were. I am pleased to hear what the minister said. I want to quote what he said. "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound." That vindicates us for all the accusations he passed on to us for so many years. That is a major conversion. In 16 months, he has realized that things are not bad out there; things are pretty good.

The problem, as Dr. Baskerville has pointed out, is not with the forest management of yesteryear; it is with the administration and the methodology being used within the ministry itself. I am most pleased with and commend the minister for taking action on the report so quickly, even though I feel we could have found somebody in Ontario who could have done Dr. Baskerville's report. Surely a province of this size with two major faculties of forestry could have found somebody of equal capability rather than having to go to New Brunswick.

I am sure my colleagues to the left will condemn the Baskerville report as not being a true audit according to what they expected in the accord, but I will let them say that.

I am pleased that the minister has identified some specific areas in which he is going to move and that he has put specific dates with a plan of action. We will hold him to that. The minister said, "The new supply model will be in the hands of all field foresters by 1987." That is commendable, and we hope he will achieve that goal. He said, "A new forest production policy, taking into account the supply capability of Ontario's forests and the demands of industry, will be developed and completed by October 1988." I assure the minister that this party will hold him to those specific dates because we want them in place.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to respond to the response of the Minister of Natural Resources to Dean Baskerville's report, or actually his audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources; I hasten to add it is not his audit of the forests but his audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The minister has fallen into a trap in that he has responded to an audit of his ministry by shuffling people and programs around within the ministry and has not done anything about what is going on in the forests.

When Dean Baskerville tabled his report, he pleaded with the opposition in particular not to take any quotations in that report out of context for fear the Minister of Natural Resources would act defensively and be resistant to change. We heeded his comment; we were very reasonable in our response to Dean Baskerville's report and decided to wait until we heard what the minister had to say. Today the minister has had his say, and guess what? He is defensive and resistant to change, the very things Dean Baskerville was worried would happen if we were too critical of his report.

The member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) quoted the minister as saying, "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound." Talk about taking something out of context; that is exactly what the minister has done. We heeded Dean Baskerville's pleading, but the minister did not.

We know the minister has done nothing more than shift a few things around within the ministry. The best example is that for some time the director of the forest resources group in the Ministry of Natural Resources has been Ken Armson, a well-respected Ontario forester. What does the minister do? With great fanfare, the minister says Mr. Armson is going to be the provincial forester. It is simply a change in title; nothing more, nothing less. The minister should not try to pretend that is a major shift. All it is is a shell game, and Mr. Armson is the pea.

This party has called for five major steps to be taken by the ministry to resolve the problems of Ontario foresters: (1) to do a proper, independent, on-the-ground audit of our forests; (2) to amend the Crown Timber Act to make sustained yield a statutory requirement; (3) to appoint a permanent forest auditor to resolve the problem of everyone suspecting the figures that come out of the Ministry of Natural Resources, as they have done for years and will continue to do as long as the ministry is producing the numbers; (4) to develop an up-to-date production policy, which the minister apparently is going to do, because it looks as though a new, up-to-date production policy is going to be established, and I commend the minister for that; and (5) to guarantee that the backlog of cutover forest land not sufficiently regenerated will be rehabilitated in 20 years.

The fifth step may be taken as a result of the forest management agreement, but we will never know until a proper audit is done, because one has not been done yet and the results of the five-year forest management agreement show there still is a problem with regeneration in Ontario's forests.

We have not heard the last of forestry as an issue in this province, because the minister is still resistant to change.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The government of Ontario is committed to helping all its citizens to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible, regardless of age or physical handicap. In keeping with that commitment, I would like to inform the House of the 10 communities that have been selected as the new sites for the integrated homemaker program.

Independence and self-determination are important life goals for all adult people. They are no less important to the frail elderly and the physically handicapped. It has become part of the government's mandate to help these people to enhance and maintain these attributes.

On January 28, 1986, I announced the introduction of an integrated homemaker program providing personal care and homemaking services to frail seniors and physically handicapped adults in their own homes. The chief goal of this program, which has been developed jointly by my ministry and the Ministry of Health, is to assist these people to remain independent and to allow them to continue to live at home, close to their friends and families, instead of in a facility.

The program is now operating in six locations throughout the province. In June, I announced it would be expanded to a number of additional communities during this fiscal year. Today, I am announcing the locations for that expansion. The cost of this expansion will be up to $12 million a year. The program will continue to be expanded over the next few years. When fully in place province-wide, its total cost will be approximately $60 million annually.

The 10 new locations for the integrated homemaker program will provide services for people living in the following communities: the district of Algoma; Brant county; Grey and Bruce counties; Haliburton, Victoria and Northumberland counties; Middlesex county; the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton; Oxford county; Perth county; Peterborough county, and Renfrew county.

Mr. Foulds: Sounds like Loto Comsoc.

Mr. McClellan: Only two Tory areas.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are five opposition areas.

These new sites, along with the six original locations, were selected on the basis of a number of criteria. Most important, each area has a significant population of elderly people and a well-established home care program in operation. I am pleased that these communities have undertaken to work with my ministry and the Ministry of Health during this important second phase of developing a province-wide integrated homemaker program.

While the program is delivered through the existing Ministry of Health home care units and is funded by my ministry, I emphasize that this program complements rather than competes with existing services. Recipients of other homemaker services must qualify under a medical test through the Ministry of Health or under a needs test through the local municipality. Under the integrated homemaker program, there are no medical or financial tests. Service is available based on need. People previously denied the assistance they need to stay in their own homes now can qualify.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) in helping to identify and respond to the needs of seniors in this province.

With the expansion of the integrated homemaker program into a total of 16 communities, I believe we are truly helping them to achieve that most important goal: to live as independently as possible for as long as possible.

Mr. Dean: I want to assure the minister and the members of his party that we have supported this kind of initiative for a long time. I congratulate the minister on prying loose from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) some additional funds for this. I notice the Treasurer's riding seems to be very high on the list; it says "county" here, which I know includes the rural part.

The expansion as listed is welcome. However, some consideration should have been given to the actual choice of the locations. Naturally, everybody would benefit from it. I understand it has to be done a portion at a time. One thing that is not indicated in the announcement is whether it is going to be made available more hours per week. Those of us who have studied it know there is a crying need for more hours per week of home care. While it is available at certain hours now, it is not available all the time.

Also, there is something not touched on; I suppose this is because it is not directly part of it. I await with bated breath to hear what the minister or his associates are going to do about additional respite care. It is a balancing factor in this. It would provide more of an opportunity for the friends and relatives of individuals who need care to carry on longer. It would reduce the cost to the government by giving them a break that is much needed. I call that to the attention of the minister as something he should address shortly.

The other thing is that no matter how much we support home care, and we support it 100 per cent, there comes a time when some residents are no longer able to be maintained in their homes. There is still a need at some point for some institutional care. I regret to say the present government does not seem to have recognized this. There has been no action in that direction since it assumed power. In the area I come from, Hamilton-Wentworth, we have a large backlog of people who are in dire need of care in an institution. There does not seem to be any additional home care provided. No additional beds have been provided. The minister should address this with his colleagues as part of a total program to enable the elderly to receive --

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

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services. First, we are happy that this program is being expanded, but perhaps we should look at it and put it in context. The $12 million is approximately the municipal contribution to the chronic care hospital that was announced in my community last week. The $12 million is about one third the cost of a chronic care hospital.

If we are to get serious about community support programs, we have to talk about a lot more money going into community support programs. The entire community support program, including any kind of home support program, is based on minimum wage. The biggest subsidy to home care in this province is not provided by the provincial government or the taxpayers; it is provided by the employees in the home care programs who are working for minimum wages.

The minister should talk to some of the people from the Red Cross and find out the staff turnover -- more than 100 per cent per year in some areas. One can never develop a proper home care program and accept it as an integrated part of the health care system on a minimum wage basis, and I encourage the minister to perform that quickly.

14:05

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Will the minister share with the House whether he believes francophones should have school facilities of lesser quality than anglophones?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thought this government responded very well when it introduced and passed Bill 75. This government intends to treat all people in the province equally.

Mr. Grossman: The minister might be aware that his government has decided to appeal the ruling in the Marchand case which specifically would have ensured and required that francophones in Ontario get the same quality of facilities as anglophones.

Let me quote from the decision of Mr. Justice Sirois. He said francophone Ontarians have a constitutional right to "the same education as is given the majority but in the other official language." He also said, "This is to be a full and complete education; not a limited, partial or truncated one, which necessarily would be an inferior education, a second-class one."

I know the minister will share my conviction and that of my party that this statement is eminently correct. Can he explain why his government has chosen to appeal this decision which, if it were allowed to stand, would give francophones the quality to which they are entitled?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This government decided to appeal the decision, along with the Simcoe County Board of Education, because in the decision of Judge Sirois, words such as "equivalent" were used. We thought the passage of Bill 75 gave francophones the right to an education. This government wants to clarify the use of the word "equivalent," and that is why we are appealing.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, the briefs submitted by the government on the appeal do not sustain the position taken by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) that the government is worried and that this has an impact on Bill 75. Bill 75 deals with governance; it has nothing whatever to do with the obligation of the government to provide fully equivalent, competitive education and educational facilities to francophones.

The minister has to agree with me that the impact of his government appealing the decision is to thwart a right that francophones today have in Ontario, given as a result of this court decision, to get equivalent and equal educational facilities to anglophones. Does the minister not agree that the action of his government in appealing this decision is stopping a guarantee given by the courts pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the francophones of this province, whom it is his obligation to protect?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This government decided to appeal this case because we believe Bill 75 addressed those problems. This government feels the decision of the judge did not take into consideration that Bill 75 was passed and that the bill gives equal rights to education.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, that is a cowardly attempt to avoid spending money on francophones who are currently getting an inferior facility.

DAY CARE

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister has known for 16 months that the indirect funding through municipalities to day care centres was coming to an end and had to be changed. He has had 16 months to devise a mechanism to succeed that. On Saturday last, he announced only an ad hoc, hardship kind of appeal available to those who might be affected. Is he able to assure this House there will not be any closures of day care centres resulting from his government's action?

14:10

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the problem with indirect subsidies has been known in Ontario since 1979 and that in 1983 the previous administration in Ontario directed all the municipalities affected by it to eliminate the procedure as of December 1985. When this government took office, it discovered very quickly that literally nothing had been done. Given the fact that a number of municipalities found themselves in a rather precarious position, I directed they be given an additional year, until December 1986, to try to get this organized.

My program staff for the various area offices have been working with those municipalities during the past year. We have resolved a considerable number of them. There are still a few left to be resolved and we have indicated to those municipalities prepared to co-operate with us to take maximum advantage of the subsidy program already in place. Those prepared to co-operate with us will receive during the review process, which I described on Saturday, a transitional grant. I think that is the fair, just and honourable way to deal with the issue.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister wants to remind this House, as he just has, that this problem has been known for some time, he is quite right. To blame this problem on 42 years or the past seven years only emphasizes there is nothing this minister can do. It is not a sudden problem; he has had 16 months to deal with it. The minister has had a submission before cabinet to deal with it and he cannot get approval for his long-term program. The minister has now to rely upon a Band-Aid approach to solve a crisis for a short period of months.

The minister was quoted on Saturday as saying, "We want to make day care a public service, not a welfare service." If it is not a welfare service, how does the minister explain the fact that he is giving hardship grants in hardship cases, perhaps to keep some day care centres open at the discretion of the minister? Is he prepared to give a categorical guarantee that after 16 months not one day care centre will close in Ontario as a result of the change in funding? Can he give the guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Leader of the Opposition would have recognized, had he heard the entire speech, the point I was making was that in those communities, where there is a danger of a centre closing and those municipalities are prepared to co-operate with us, we will provide the traditional funds during the review process so that those centres will not close.

Mr. Grossman: I must tell the minister that at the very time he was making this speech in Toronto on the weekend, there was a day care conference in Thunder Bay involving all the centres in northwestern Ontario -- centres such as Geraldton and Red Lake, the kind of centres his leader was in, saying there was not much he could do for them. When we contacted these municipalities this morning, they had not yet been informed by the ministry about the statement he made on Saturday, his suggestion that there will be consultations or discussions with any of these municipalities affected.

The minister can alleviate the concern of Geraldton, Red Lake and other northern communities, which he has not bothered to contact yet with his new policy, by having the courage this afternoon to stand up and say something very simple, such as, "The Minister of Community and Social Services guarantees that, as a result of the funding change, he will ensure that not one day care centre closes in Ontario." He is either prepared to make that commitment or he is not. Is the minister prepared to make that commitment this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: For the third time, I have indicated that where there is a municipality in which there is a danger of closure, where there is a municipality in which there is a financial hardship, where there is a municipality that is prepared to co-operate with our staff, the centre will not close.

Mr. Rae: Given that the minister has even delayed the issuing of a white paper beyond any respectable time, and given that in Fort Frances, to give the minister one example, in January 1987, parents are going to be expected to pay $8,528 a year per child, which means that if one has two kids in day care it is $17,000 and if one has three it is $25,500, would the minister not agree that it is not the Premier (Mr. Peterson) who has the patience of Job but the parents and kids of this province, who have been waiting for action from this government on a decent child care program that allows them to get into a child care centre, enables them to stay there, have decent care and decent service and not have to pay $25,000, $17,000 or $8,500 a year in order to get child care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I most certainly concur with the leader of the third party that there are a number of parents in this province, not only in the location he has described but also in others, who are facing very serious problems with the affordability of child care. There are other parents who are experiencing problems with respect to accessibility to child care. There are other parents who are facing problems with respect to a choice that meets their particular need, which may not be between nine and five o'clock. That is entirely the series of issues that our day care paper will respond to.

I also remind the leader of the third party that there has to be a close collaboration, because of the cost factor, for an expansion of that service between ourselves and the federal government. That process is going on right at the present time as well.

Mr. Rae: White papers do not provide decent services, white papers do not provide a subsidy, nor does the shell game between the feds and the province, which has to be the oldest and the most tired excuse for inactivity. If we could do medicare in Saskatchewan in the 1970s, why can we not do child care in Ontario in the 1980s, take a lead as a province and get the feds on board? Let us take the lead here.

Specifically, is the minister saying the municipal nonprofit centres that are now established are going to have to wait for a federal program before they will get a decent level of support from the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I point out to the honourable leader of the third party that this government has taken action on a number of issues while the process is going on. The leader would be aware that we have put 10,000 additional subsidized spaces on the market; that is a 50 per cent increase. The leader would be aware that we have increased the number of resource centres available to parents and to child care workers. The leader would be aware that we have set up four rural pilot programs. The leader would be aware that, particularly in northern Ontario, we have announced several initiatives. In other words, there is an ongoing process right at the present time.

However, the leader would also be aware that in order for two levels of government to co-operate in these kinds of initiatives and this kind of expansion, we have to know what the rules of the game are. That is what we are waiting for.

Mr. Rae: If the minister wants to know what the rules of the game are, the members opposite are the government, they can write the rules if they want to; and right now the minister is writing the rules for Geraldton, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances and Dryden. As a result, parents today are having to decide which of their kids are going to get quality day care and which are going to have to be pulled out to go to a baby-sitter. That is precisely what is happening to families in northern Ontario today because the government is not writing and making the rules that will make a difference to those families.

Does the minister not realize that the effect of his government's failure to move and its failure to provide a decent direct-transfer-of-moneys program to nonprofit municipal centres is that parents are having to make those choices today because they cannot afford $17,000 a year to keep two kids in a day care centre?

14:20

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: A number of the initiatives we have already taken, some of the ones I have just described to him, have been at more than the fair share of the provincial level. Some of those initiatives have been 60 per cent at our cost rather than 50 per cent. Some have been 70 per cent at our cost. Quite frankly, there is a financial limit on how many initiatives we can afford to take at that kind of sharing.

We are prepared to do our fair share, but day care is not solely a provincial responsibility. As early as the beginning of this month, the federal government of this country announced in its throne speech that it recognizes its responsibility. It is prepared to sit down with us, with employers and with labour unions to work out a fair sharing of the costs and a fair distribution of the programs.

We are prepared to do the same, but we have to know what the federal government is planning to do before we can make too many other expansions.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Does he think it appropriate that Carl and Lisa McCoy of Gravenhurst have been asked to pay $150 in administrative charges to Dr. Steinberg for an operation to determine whether in vitro fertilization has a chance to work? That $150 is $11 more than the Ontario health insurance plan pays for the actual procedure. Does the minister think that is appropriate or does he believe it is a violation of section 27, regulation 448 of the Health Disciplines Act, which states that professional misconduct is "charging a fee that is excessive in relation to the services performed"?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is the first time I have heard of that item. I will take a look at it and review what is happening with those.

The honourable gentleman will know I have met with the Ontario Medical Association and looked in general terms at some of those items which are causing problems and difficulty with respect to access to services. We will be looking forward to a report from that association. In addition, we are looking at the role the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is to play with respect to the regulation the member quoted and the various aspects of the charges, such as those he noted on access. I will advise the member of the results of those meetings.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The case I refer to was outlined extensively in the Toronto Star on Saturday. In this article, Dr. Richard Railton is quoted as saying: "I just wonder, if they are in this much financial trouble, whether they're making a mistake to get into this program in the first place."

Does the minister think it is appropriate for the president of the Ontario Medical Association to determine who should and should not have children in this province? Does the minister not understand these administrative charges are getting us right back into this process of doctors determining who can and cannot have access to the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think the role of the president of the OMA is to determine who has and does not have children. The meeting we held last Thursday with the association resulted in a very clear and specific statement from the president of the OMA about how embarrassed the association is with respect to those charges that are acting as barriers to access to service.

We are pursuing that matter and we will pursue it further when we hear back from the association and when we follow up as a result of our meetings with the college of physicians and surgeons.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister is not pursuing the matter. The minister met with the college of physicians and surgeons back in July. A letter was supposed to go out from the college then, and nothing went out. Is that what the minister calls pursuing? If this problem is going to be solved, the leadership has to come from him and the government, if he has the guts to do it.

Does the minister think it is appropriate that Dr. Bernstein would charge $250 for delivering a baby over and above the $497 that was paid by OHIP, 50 per cent of the actual OHIP fee schedule, without giving notice to this family? He simply sent a bill, which states, part A, obstetric care and delivery, $497.69; part B, nonmedical services, $250. There was no advance notice.

Is that appropriate? Is the minister and this government going to allow this to continue? Is this the new safety valve his leader used to refer to?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I do not think the honourable gentleman believes it is fair. I do not believe it is fair either. It certainly violates the guidelines of any sorts of charges that are to be made. I believe none of us would like to see that type of activity followed. I will pursue that situation on behalf of the member.

[Later]

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to correct the record. I referred to the McCoys' doctor as being Dr. Steinberg; I should have said Dr. Kroach. Dr. Steinberg is another doctor in Toronto who is also levying administrative fees.

Mr. Speaker: The member has corrected the record.

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I confirmed with the regional offices of his ministry last week our understanding of the convert-to-rent program, which is that to qualify for subsidy under this program, a project must convert existing rental stock.

In view of this understanding of the program, which we all share, will the minister explain to me how a development on Toronto's waterfront, erected by the company of Huang and Danczkay, received $3.5 million under the convert-to-rent program although it clearly did not qualify?

I further ask the minister whether he will confirm that the Huang and Danczkay company is represented by a well-known Liberal lobbyist, Ivan Fleischmann, in this enterprise; indicate to whom in his ministry Mr. Fleischmann made representations; and when and what the representations were.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to understand the member's question. I think the project met the approval of the convert-to-rent program. With respect to Mr. Fleischmann's involvement in the project, I would have to get back to the member to explain that. I do not understand the member's question.

Mr. Gillies: Can the minister also let us know whether any of the $3.5 million ended up in Mr. Fleischmann's pocket by way of a fee, as was the case in the Caplan affair?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Gillies: I ask the minister how the erection of twin apartment towers on land previously occupied by grain elevators could possibly be seen as the conversion of existing building stock for the erection of apartments.

Mr. Rae: The member should use his imagination.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a supplementary.

Mr. Gillies: I guess one could use one's imagination.

How on earth can the minister deny convert-to-rent funding to any other developer building rental construction in the province when clearly the funds were not used for conversion in this case and they could similarly apply to any number of projects across the province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, the project met the criteria of the convert-to-rent program. The honourable member may not agree with it, but it did meet the criteria. Housing policy is to make available as much as possible for rental units. It seems to me that whenever we try to do so, the criticism comes from everywhere else about why we should not do so.

On the other hand, my honourable friend wonders whether I can guarantee that none of this money went into Ivan Fleischmann's pocket. I cannot respond to that detail. I am sure that if Mr. Fleischmann did legitimate work in regard to consultation or what have you, he has all the right to receive his pay.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS SPILL

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will know that last Friday there was a polychlorinated biphenyls spill because of a Hydro transformer blowing up in Chapleau very close to the water supply where the water treatment plant extracts water from the river.

Can the minister tell us why it was that, despite the fact that the explosion occurred and the spill of the PCB oil into the river occurred very early on Friday morning, it was Sunday before the ministry tested the water that was going into the water supply for Chapleau? Why were the local doctors left to tell the people not to drink the water in case it was contaminated? I hasten to add that the water turned out to be safe, but the minister and his staff did not know that at the time the people in the community were drinking the water.

14:30

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, as the member has appropriately pointed out, and it is important to this whole situation, the analysis of the samples of the water from the Chapleau River indicated that no PCBs were detected. Samples were taken on October 24 and 25, analysed at the Ministry of the Environment's Toronto laboratory on Sunday and reported to health and municipal officials. While some samples were taken, it is my understanding that they were brought to the lab to be tested. The lab was open in Toronto, and that is when the analysis took place. That was the indication I had.

Certainly, in this case the people have indicated concern, as has the member. That is appropriate whenever we have an incident involving PCBs.

An individual who operates the plant was on the site at the time the spill occurred. Because of the time of evening it happened -- it was quite dark and so on -- it was difficult at the beginning to detect the reason for the shutdown of electricity. Hydro finally detected that in fact there had been an explosion and that PCBs had escaped on to the ground. It was later discovered that they had made their way into an old storm sewer of sorts and into the river.

Mr. Laughren: The ministry did not respond until there were media reports. Since there are seven other similar transformers at the same site, still very close to the Chapleau River and still right where the intake goes to the water treatment plant for the drinking water supply, can the minister tell us what assurances he can give that the same thing will not occur again? What steps is he taking to prevent that?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will understand that this is a problem we confront right across the country as we phase out the use of PCBs in transformers. There is an effort on the part of Ontario Hydro and other utilities to do so. In this case, we will be in consultation with Hydro to attempt to ensure that further spills will not occur, but I do not want to pretend there is not that opportunity when we still use PCBs in transformers all over the country. As the transformers are taken out of use, the PCBs are taken out of use as well. We are very close to approving a process of decontaminating old transformers, for instance, and approving the technology for the destruction of the class 3 and class 2 PCBs, with the class 1 PCBs to follow.

An incident of this kind always prompts us to consult further with Ontario Hydro and other utilities across the country to determine what would be the best method of at least taking out these transformers -- and I think this is the member's concern -- in areas where they would be adjacent to a drinking water source or in another dangerous situation. I will certainly proceed with that.

SALE OF APARTMENTS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) was quoted in the October 21, 1986, Toronto Star as promising an impact study on the proposed purchase of the 11,000 apartment units that are being sold by Clarkson Gordon. That impact study would look at how it affected tenants. Last week in the House, the minister took a "Who me?" attitude to the question that was asked and talked about five per cent pass-throughs and things such as that. Is the minister prepared to bring an impact study into the House showing what the purchase would do to tenants and how it would affect the affordability of those 11,000 units? Will he keep the Premier's promise?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows the matter is now in front of the court to decide who will be the buyers of those units. I cannot do an impact study until I know what has been involved in the purchase of them.

Mr. Gordon: I beg to differ. I think the minister has many of the facts before him right now and could be preparing an impact study on how this is going to affect tenants. That is a shameful way to handle this issue.

I would go further and say that the Metro housing commissioner has said quite clearly that the sale of these 11,000 units is going to create an affordability problem for the tenants who live in those buildings. Will the minister tell the House what he is going to do to protect those tenants who have an affordability problem? How is he going to help those tenants, or is he going to deny that he has any kind of responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know the honourable member is quite a responsible critic, and I would not like him to alarm the tenants that there are going to be extreme costs involved in the purchase of those 11,000 units. I do not know officially who those buyers are. He may know. I gather the court will make that decision some time today or tomorrow.

I suggest, though, that the honourable member could co-operate and help pass Bill 51, which will give all tenants in this province full protection under the law. At the moment, we know we are doing our best. Again, I urge him and all members of his party to get Bill 51 through as soon as possible.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week he attempted to pass the buck on the concerns of residents about Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track by saying they could go to city council for relief. Is the minister aware that last Friday Toronto city council passed an emergency resolution asking the provincial government to intervene? The city solicitor had advised council members that the city has no power to act effectively to protect the residents' right to be heard and to have their concerns considered.

Will the minister comply with this urgent request by Toronto city council and immediately introduce amendments to the Racing Commission Act? These would ensure that the residents of the area would be given an adequate opportunity to voice their concerns before a genuinely independent tribunal and would defer any action on Sunday racing at Greenwood until the opportunity for citizen input has been made available.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member of Beaches-Woodbine for the question. She should know that the resolution passed by city council asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to take a look at the act and to amend it to allow representation by citizen groups. That is all it asked for. I have no problem with that. There is a lot of merit to it. However, we have a problem when we decide which jurisdiction those citizen groups are going to ask the Ontario Racing Commission to rule on. That is where we have the problem.

Ms. Bryden: As the minister undoubtedly knows, some of the residents of the immediate area and I have taken to court a challenge to the rulings of the Ontario Racing Commission about whether it should listen to the residents. Pending the outcome of that court case, will the minister use his good offices to persuade the Ontario Jockey Club to honour a commitment it made at the time it was applying for Sunday racing at Woodbine, when municipal approval was considered essential by law. In the commitment, the Ontario Jockey Club said that if it were given Sunday racing at Woodbine, it would undertake, as a quid pro quo, not to ask for Sunday racing at Greenwood.

Will the minister ask the Ontario Jockey Club to honour its commitment and not start Sunday racing on November 2 to demonstrate respect for both its own word of honour and the residents whose lives have already been disrupted greatly by racetrack operations?

14:40

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As the member knows, the Ontario Racing Commission, which is the only body I have any jurisdiction over, has not come down with a decision. As soon as it does, whatever that decision may be, if there is a concern -- we do not know what its decision is going to be; the decision may resolve the problem, but if it does not, and if there is a role for me to play, I will be prepared to do it.

The member should also know one of the problems we have is that the municipalities are constantly complaining about erosion of their responsibilities. I am quite prepared to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to find out whether there is a role to be played. We have a situation where, if I give responsibility for traffic and neighbourhood control to the Ontario Racing Commission, the municipalities may be quite incensed that we are undermining their responsibilities. It is a very difficult problem, something that has to be resolved in consultation, so all municipalities will know what we are planning. If I give that responsibility to the Ontario Racing Commission, it may set up as many problems as it resolves.

RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Today in the community of Georgetown in the region of Halton there are only two multiple-unit buildings under construction. I am told they started out as rental units, except that, their owners having examined Bill 78 and then Bill 51, these units are now preselling as condominiums. This is not a case of conversion; it is a market reaction to those two bills.

Will the minister now publicly agree with the statements made by his assistant deputy minister and the co-chairman of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, who have indicated that Bill 51 is going to do very little, if anything, to assist the construction of new rental housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I should make it pretty clear that Bill 51 is not a construction bill. It creates an environment for the landlords and tenants, and it brings in some laws that protect tenants and treat landlords fairly. While saying that, I also remind the member that within the past nine months my ministry has approved more than 19,000 social housing units. One of the great concerns we have is about the lack of affordable rental housing in this province. We are looking to Bill 51 to bring an environment in which landlords and tenants can be treated fairly, and tenants can be protected, while at the same time building up the supply of affordable rental units.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister is unaware of any initiatives in the private sector -- he is not assisting the private sector -- he must be aware that the four mayors of the municipalities in Halton region have all agreed and identified unaffordable housing as the most recent crisis in Halton. That is the same council his colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight) represented prior to being elected to this House.

The minister has turned down every application -- I think there have been eight or nine -- in Halton region for subsidized nonprofit housing in the year and a half he has been minister. Given that the minister is not stimulating private sector construction, if he is going to rely on these programs, why is he not freeing up more units and giving through more approvals so we can overcome the current crisis in Ontario and have additional housing units? When will the minister come up with a program that will effectively construct those units right away?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I listened to the member very carefully. I do not believe what I am hearing. The assured housing program we put in place during the past year and a half has been the most progressive housing policy ever to hit Ontario. There is the Renterprise program of 5,000 units, with which we assisted the private sector. Honourable members on the other side of the House told me not one unit would be built if we brought in the private sector; but within a few months, all 5,000 units were gobbled up.

I cannot understand the honourable member. As I said previously, 19,000 nonprofit rental units were approved, along with the 5,000 Renterprise units and the convert-to-rent program. A tremendous amount of units have been put on the market. The private sector has much more confidence in this government because we seem to be co-operative, and I am very optimistic that we will see more in the coming year.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Rae: En l'absence du ministre de l'Éducation (M. Conway), j'adresse donc ma question au premier ministre sur la décision, de la part du gouvernement, de faire appel de la décision du juge Sirois, dans le cas de M. Marchand et les familles qu'il représente dans le comté de Simcoe.

J'aimerais demander deux choses au premier ministre. D'abord, pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il recours à un appel qui va coûter cher aux parents qui ont gagné une victoire importante en cour, où le juge a dit que les parents avaient droit à la même éducation que celle offerte à la majorité et je traduit: "Ce doit être une éducation pleine et complète, et non pas une éducation limitée, partielle ou tronquée, qui serait nécessairement une éducation inférieure."

J'aimerais poser une première question au premier ministre: pourquoi faire appel d'une telle décision, qui démontre un sens de la justice dans la province de l'Ontario?

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je veux dire à mon ami que, comme l'honorable député le sait, je suis avocat. J'ai étudié le droit à l'université, mais je suis un mauvais avocat et je ne suis pas en position de donner un point de vue juridique sur les circonstances. Mais on me dit que le jugement n'était pas assez clair dans les circonstances et c'était l'avis du ministre de l'Éducation et du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître).

Il serait préférable que le jugement de la cour soit plus clair. C'est pourquoi on en a fait appel dans les circonstances, et je crois que c'est avec le comté de Simcoe aussi, pour assurer un avenir plus certain. C'était un avis juridique, je crois. Comme mon ami le sait, ce gouvernement a fait beaucoup de choses pour faire avancer les droits des francophones dans la province de l'Ontario, et nous pensons que ce sera encore mieux à l'avenir.

M. Rae: On ne peut pas être d'accord avec le premier ministre, parce que la décison est claire. C'est une décision que le gouvernement n'a pas acceptée, mais tout de même, la décision est très claire. Le juge dit que le principe d'équivalence, de comparaison, devrait être appliqué dans le comté. C'est-à-dire que la minorité a droit au même niveau d'éducation, aux mêmes facilités que la majorité dans le comté.

Ce que veut dire le gouvernement, c'est que l'équivalence n'existe pas dans le comté. On ne fait pas la comparaison ou l'équivalence avec la majorité, mais avec n'importe quel autre groupe choisi par le gouvernement, dans n'importe quelle région, dans n'importe quelle partie de la province.

J'aimerais poser ma question directement au premier ministre. Où est le manque de clarté dont il parle dans sa réponse, au sujet de la décision du juge? Pourquoi le gouvernement n'accepte-t-il pas la définition de l'équivalence telle que donnée dans la décision, qui est une définition plus juste, plus égale -- à mon avis, en tout cas, et de l'avis du juge certainement -- plus en comparaison et en équivalence, non seulement avec le traitement de la majorité, mais avec la Charte des droits et libertés elle-même?

Voilà ma question: pourquoi aller en appel qui coûtera de l'argent aux parents et qui est un pas rétrograde en ce qui concerne le niveau de l'éducation pour la minorité francophone de la province?

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je voudrais dire à mon ami qu'il est peut-être aussi mauvais avocat que moi et que je ne connais pas exactement, personnellement, toutes les raisons qui ont influencé la décision au point de vue juridique, mais on me dit que c'était nécessaire dans les circonstances et que ce n'est pas contre les intérêts des francophones de l'Ontario, parce que comme le député le sait, c'est ce gouvernementci qui a fait avancer tous les droits des francophones. C'est le ministre qui a avancé ce projet de loi.

Mais c'est important que les choses soient claires à l'avenir et c'est pourquoi, sur l'avis des avocats, nous sommes allés en appel. Je crois que c'est la raison, mais aussi peut-être que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones peut l'aider dans les circonstances, ou encore le ministre de l'Education au point de vue juridique, mais on me dit que ce sont les circonstances de ce projet de loi et ce n'est pas contre les intérêts des francophones, mais bien pour faire avancer leurs intérêts.

14:50

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. For 17 months now, the minister has been telling the public he is quite prepared to remove the soil from around McClure Crescent, but that his hands are tied by a court case. His hands are not tied by a court case when it comes to the south Riverdale people. There are 200 residences there. Is he prepared to remove that soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The McClure Crescent case was a concern in my riding of Scarborough North, which I acted on promptly and which my colleagues supported very well. Riverdale is not in my riding. It is also an environmental problem, so the honourable member should ask the Minister of Environment (Mr. Bradley) to address that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really feel the Minister of Housing responded to at least part of the question. I presume you want to place your supplementary to the Minister of Housing?

Mr. Gordon: The minister might be trying to pass the buck to another minister, but he happens to be the Minister of Housing. As the Minister of Housing, he made a commitment to move that radioactive soil from those McClure Crescent residences.

Now we have a situation where the Minister of Housing can act again. When he promised to remove the radioactive soil from around the McClure residences, he also said it did not pose a health hazard to those people. However, we now know that with lead, we do have a very significant danger to children, for example, who might play in the soil.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gordon: There is a health hazard. Will the minister act to remove that soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the member has tremendous confidence in me to act in environmental matters. However, I remind him again that it is not within my jurisdiction to address the south Riverdale environmental problem.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last spring the Upper Ottawa Street landfill site selection committee completed its final report and submitted that report to the ministry. We have not seen that report. Can the minister tell us why the report has not been released and when we can expect to see it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Apparently, the report did come to the public health branch this summer. I was made aware of it later in the summer. It has been put out for review by several other ministries, and other independent groups have been contacted for feedback. I am trying to make arrangements now to speak with the chairman of the group which did the study in the hope that we can make arrangements for its release. I would like to see it out very shortly.

Mr. Charlton: Nobody objects to this process of review. It is the process of nonrelease with which we have a problem. When the site study committee released its interim report in May 1983, it released a report to the ministry and to the public in Hamilton on the same day, and it held a public forum where the public and the media could question the site study committee.

That committee has now closed its offices. Its members have disbanded and gone their separate ways. I suppose they can be traced, but they will not be available in Hamilton to answer questions about the study when the minister gets around to releasing it. Why was the procedure different this time?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure why the procedure was different. I do know the chairman's inclination on this is -- I have not spoken to him directly myself but reports have indicated -- that he would like to have a public forum again when it is released. I am not sure that it will be possible this time, because I understand the chairman is leaving for an extended working trip to another area. We are trying to get the report out after we have received the information back. I would like to get it out very shortly and I am in the process of trying to set up a time when I can speak directly to the chairman to see what would be best from his standpoint and ours.

It is important to note that in many ways a number of parts of the report have been circulated to various public groups, including members of the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Labour and some of the people with whom contact was made during the course of those hearings. I wish to get the report out fully so we can pursue the consultations further.

JOB RETRAINING

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development. As the minister is aware, some months ago I raised in the House the issue of the Ethyl Canada workers adjacent to my riding in the community of Moore township. I pointed out that the imminent reduction in work at that plant as a result of the phase-out of tetraethyl lead has caused a great deal of anxiety among the workers, who obviously and for reasons that are quite justified are concerned about the loss of their jobs.

I raised the question with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and also spoke to the minister in connection with the difficulty these workers are having with present retraining programs and other programs that could be put together by the government, in concert with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), with respect to another use for that plant.

Can the minister indicate whether he has had any discussions that will assist with the retraining of some of those workers to give them an opportunity to shift from their present place of employment to some other occupation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend from Sarnia is absolutely right in saying he has raised the issue with the Premier and with me. During my discussions with the member I did point out that that area of job retraining is the primary responsibility of the federal government through its now famous Canadian Jobs Strategy.

I undertook when I met with him to write to my federal counterpart to raise the issue of why these Ethyl workers were not getting an opportunity at retraining programs that were available to any other member of the Sarnia community who was underemployed or unemployed. Thus far, I can tell my friend, I have not had a response from my federal counterpart and I am still waiting.

Mr. Brandt: I thank the minister for his efforts. I would also like to raise the question of some of the economic impact in my riding that goes beyond retraining. I realize this is not related directly to his ministry, but it is connected with the retraining, as well as a further use for that plant with respect to some other product development that could be made there. I want to advise the minister, by way of question, that a local delegation did go to the head office of Ethyl Corp. in Richmond, Virginia. They have indicated they will be very co-operative in looking at other functions for that plant.

I want to ask the minister whether his ministry, in connection with retraining beyond that of the federal government as well as the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, will take a look at that situation to head off any possibility of those employees being laid off or being found without jobs in the not-too-distant future if the phase-out of tetraethyl lead continues as expected?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have just mentioned to my friend from Sarnia that only very recently, about a month ago, I introduced Ontario's Training Strategy, a program that could be helpful in this regard. Indeed, that program is primarily for the employed work force, and part of the thrust of the program is to do away with redundancy.

It is not replacing the obligations of the federal government, nor does it replace long-term industrial retraining for the unemployed work force. I am perfectly willing, however -- as a matter of fact I would be delighted -- to send my friend and the workers down at Ethyl information on Ontario's Training Strategy. It may be a program that can help overcome the redundancy and help the employer ensure that those workers a year from now are working, and working even more productively. I would be delighted to send the member information on it.

15:00

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It relates back to the answer on insurance rates he gave in this House a few days ago, in which he purported to show, contrary to all other independent studies which have been done, that rates were marginally lower in Ontario than in Manitoba.

Can the minister deny that the nonrepresentative rates quoted for Ontario were as of January 1, 1986, and thus did not show this year's substantial increases, while those for Manitoba were rates currently being charged?

Further, can the minister deny that those figures were provided to him by a sector of the insurance industry and not from any independent source?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. He is correct when he says the rates I quoted were effective as of January 1. So that he will not feel neglected, I will quote him the rates as of October 15. For exactly the same category, as the member will know because I gave him the details, the figures are: Vancouver, BC, $652; Regina, Saskatchewan, $473; Winnipeg, Manitoba, $561; London, Ontario, $486; Kitchener, Ontario, $494; Ottawa, Ontario, $492; and Toronto, Ontario, $617. The same ratio is maintained. The figures are a little different, based on the fact that one set was for January 1 and the other was for October 15.

Mr. Swart: I wonder what excuse he will use when these figures prove to be incorrect as well. Given that a comprehensive study was done by Woods Gordon for a select committee of this House eight years ago, which showed that western public plans paid back 20 per cent more in claims for every dollar paid in premium, and given that the contrast in rates of those plans versus Ontario's have spread since that time, why does the minister not get Woods Gordon or some other competent accounting firm to do a comprehensive comparison of the rates in Manitoba and Ontario? Then he will not have to come before this House to defend the insurance companies, and the public will know the real benefits of those western plans.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I find it a little strange that the member would criticize me for giving him figures that were six months old and then give me figures that are eight years old.

CORN TARIFF

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On Friday the tariff comes into effect on US corn. Ontario elevator companies are bringing in US corn now at a very high rate to beat that tariff. Many of these companies have benefited in one way or another from Ontario government programs. How many of the company executives has the minister phoned in the past two or three weeks to get them to temper their greed in this crop year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: What I have done is to work very diligently with the Ontario Corn Producers' Association in its efforts to get countervailing duties on corn coming up from the US.

We saw a report in The Toronto Star on Sunday which was not completely accurate. That report stated a decision had been reached about countervailing duties on corn. We saw a more accurate report in the Globe and Mail today. A decision has not been reached.

The Department of National Revenue has not yet made a decision whether it is going to go ahead with the countervail on corn, but as I say, I have been working very diligently through the corn producers' association in support of its efforts to get countervailing duties on corn.

I have not phoned any executives, as the member asked in his question.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Poirier: I have two petitions. The first one reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed by 42 persons from my riding.

Mr. Cordiano: I have two petitions on behalf of a number of people. They read as follows:

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

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

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

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

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 122 persons who attended Sunday masses yesterday at Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church, which is opposite the Greenwood Race Track on Queen Street East. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid race track;

"And whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the race track and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Poirier: My second petition is from 26 employees of the new Dominion food store in Orleans, Ontario, pertaining to beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores:

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

"We understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wine in Ontario grocery stores.

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Allen from the standing committee on social development reported the followed resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $2,014,800; university support program, $1,173,675,000; college support program, $454,734,700; student affairs program, $146,372,300.

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

College support program, $60,000,000.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answer to the famous question 315, which has been long awaited. As I indicated earlier, this is quite a major work of compilation of statistics and information, which may or may not be worth the effort and the money. I am told the answer cost about $108,000. However, it is not our judgement as to its importance, but here it is for the opposition. [See Hansard for Monday, November 3.]

15:10

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Gordon: I want to note that the handsome member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) adjourned the debate, to be followed by the member for Sudbury, who wishes to make a few remarks with regard to Bill 28.

Whenever we talk about income tax, whenever we talk about moving money out of one pocket into the other -- and of course when I talk about the other I am referring to the pocket of government -- we can be assured that the members of this Legislature perk up and show a great deal of interest. We can go further and say that whenever we talk about increasing taxes, or decreasing taxes for that matter, the residents of Ontario pay particular attention to what is going on.

In the 16 months since this Liberal government came into power, the residents of Ontario have had the opportunity, and not a very happy opportunity, of seeing their pockets being picked for ever more dollars to pay the taxes that have been levied by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), a gentleman who spends a great deal of time kicking the tires on the tractors down at Earl's corner -- or is it Earl's shelter?

Miss Stephenson: Earl's Shell station.

Mr. Gordon: I should get that right.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Earl's Shell Service.

Mr. Gordon: Earl's Shell Service. We can be sure that is not a day care centre, because if it were a day care centre we can be sure the current Liberal government would have been promising those day care workers a lot more today when the coalition came to visit over in the Ontario Room in the Hepburn Block. The fact that they were visiting in the Hepburn Block could have some implications or perhaps could be a prophecy of what is to come. We will be watching closely to see whether the extra taxes that the Treasurer is taking are going to be going into day care. I am sure former Premier Mitch Hepburn will be looking down from his place of honour up there on the other side of the stars and will be paying close attention to what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Treasurer recommend.

I would like to take a few moments today to talk about a favourite subject of mine, a subject the residents of Sudbury riding and the north in particular are concerned about -- I should not limit it to the north; it is of concern to all of Ontario -- and that is the whole issue of property taxation. Taking it even further, it is the issue of educational taxation.

More and more, no matter where we go in this province, we hear people talking about the effects of the taxes they pay at the local level and the increasing proportion that is going toward educational institutions, the secondary and the elementary systems. They are very concerned that the provincial government not only appears to be cutting back the amount of money it is providing at the local level but is reducing the level of its contribution at the local level.

When I look at my own community, Sudbury, I can tell this is hurting the average property owner. I say that because, perhaps more than most communities in Ontario, we have experienced the boom-and-bust days of the economy. For many years we were tied to the resource industries, and to a large extent we are still tied to the resource industries of Inco and Falconbridge. Being tied to these industries has meant that we have faced increases in our taxes at the local level much beyond what we should have had to face, and it has created real hardship for our citizens in the Sudbury region.

There is one aspect of income tax I would like to spend a little time talking about this afternoon. I believe there should be a shift of financial responsibility from the local municipality to the province when it comes to education. I believe that is going to be increasingly important. When I look at even my own community, where we have more and more people facing early retirement as a result of the downturn in the resource sector, these people are retiring on largely fixed pensions that will not increase to any appreciable extent during the coming years. These people are going to find it increasingly difficult to pay the kinds of educational taxes being levied at the local level.

When one considers that people work very hard in this province, when the average working man comes to the time in his life when he is collecting his pension he should know he is not going to be faced with ever-declining funds because of education. Throughout the years, through the property taxation system, these men and women have paid for education. Many times they have paid for their own children's education, and they have paid for many other children who have gone through the educational system. When one gets to be 50, 55, 60 or 65, and if one is on a pension, that is the time when one should be getting some kind of a break. It is difficult enough for these people.

I think of my own community. To go out and find another job in the north at 50 or more years of age is a very difficult task today. The jobs just are not there. Not only does one have the problem of one's occupation being taken away from one but much of one's status too. People often come up to me. I say: "Hi, I am Jim Gordon; and you are?" Let us say someone replies, "Sam Lahti." The next question I ask is, "What do you do?" The person says he was retired early from Falconbridge or Inco because of the resource downturn, because of the policies of those multinationals -- and do not get me into talking about the policies of those multinationals; I can talk about that for hours and hours, but we will leave that aside for the moment.

Much as that individual would like to go out and find another job to supplement his or her pension, and perhaps provide a certain measure of further self-esteem as a retired person, he or she cannot do it; the jobs just are not there. Yet they are going to be stung time and time again with this education tax at the lower level. I think those days should be brought to a close. I do not think they should be paying it directly through property tax, because it does not reflect the fact that their incomes are lower. That is why we in this province would be much more prudent to turn to an education tax based on personal income. That would more truly reflect what a person is making.

15:20

Take some of those whom we call the working poor or some of the people who are just beginning to start out in society. They have bought their first home. They have to buy their refrigerator, stove and furniture, and in today's society they need an automobile to get around from one place to another. It would be much better if they were to pay towards education according to their personal incomes rather than according to some antiquated property tax system, which I believe does not have the relevancy, the propriety or the fairness we expect in this day and age.

I think of something that happened very recently in our community. We have had market value assessment. The members of this House are well aware of what market value assessment can do in a community. I had the pleasure of picking up the Toronto Star on the weekend; it was pleasurable until I got to about page 9, where I saw this picture of the Treasurer --

Miss Stephenson: With his feet up, as usual.

Mr. Gordon: With his feet up.

Miss Stephenson: He always has his feet up.

Mr. Gordon: The member sitting next to me, the member for York Mills, claims the Treasurer always has his feet up, but we will have to see about that.

There he is, sitting there with his feet up, saying things such as: "We are not going to force market value assessment on any municipality that does not see the wisdom of this great deed that we would like to do unto them. We would not force anything on them, not us." I can see him, with his special blessing and his incense, saying: "Municipalities, pax vobiscum; do not worry. We will not put market value on you." Sure, but he did it in the north.

He put it on the Sudbury region, and in the Sudbury region we have more pensioners per capita than there are down here in the Metro area, but I did not hear the Treasurer going up north and saying, "Listen, gentlemen, I would not like to foist anything on you," although they did everything possible to get the poor Sudbury region to take on market value assessment. As a result -- and all this goes right back to the whole question of education being funded by personal income tax -- do members know what has happened now?

We have had people who worked in the mines and smelters of that region who had a modest little cottage that over the years they fixed up into a modest little home, and they made the terrible mistake -- imagine -- of building on a lake. Members know what that has done. Today in the north we have lots of trees and lots of lakes. In the Sudbury region, we must have about 27 lakes -- actually, we have more than that; I know I am going to be corrected on that.

With all these lakes, we are not supposed to build any houses or cottages or anything on these lakes because if we do, with market value assessment, the property values shoot right out of sight. We have a situation where perhaps the husband has passed away and we have his widow living in a modest little home on that lake, and we see the education taxes she is going to have to pay now because of market value assessment.

Does the Treasurer want to tell me we should not be collecting education tax through personal income tax? Is that what he is going to tell me? I hope not. I hope this government is finally going to take some progressive steps. It is the kind of thing one can get incensed about.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member does that so well.

Mr. Gordon: I hear the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would be very pleased if he would come up to my riding and spread some of his largess around the Sudbury region. I would be glad if he did that; it would be so helpful. I would be glad to stand right beside him when he made the announcement, just so everybody would pay attention to him. Otherwise, I do not think they would even see him.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Ask them about their new building at Laurentian University.

Mr. Gordon: I am not going to rise to that kind of interruption from the minister. After all, I am sure he thinks about me when he is driving away in his big limousine and when he is flying around the province in his government airplane. I am sure that when he gets back to that cabinet table he will get back to the concept I am talking about, that we should be paying for education through a personal income tax. I know he is going to take that up on my behalf and on behalf of all those pensioners, lower-income people and newly married couples who are having a difficult time making ends meet. I know he is going to take that up on my behalf. Now I know that, I can carry on with the other part of my talk.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am looking for a hanky for the member.

Mr. Gordon: I can see the crocodile tears running down the minister's cheeks. I am sure that when he goes into the King Eddy, the new King Edward Hotel downtown -- what is the dining room there? I have never been there, but I have heard it is quite expensive.

Mr. Speaker: Are you referring to this bill?

Mr. Gordon: Yes, I am. I am sure that when he goes into the dining room, he is going to talk about this issue over the hors-d'oeuvres and so forth.

The second point I would like to raise today again concerns this whole business of taxation. I think it is time too that we had a pooling of the commercial and industrial taxes in this province. I know this will not go down too well with some members. I can think of some members in my own party, some in the Liberal party and perhaps even some in the New Democratic Party who will not agree with me.

The point is, why should some school boards be poorer than others when they are providing education to our young people? Should there be any thought in this province, or should there be any thought in the minds of any of us, that a single youngster, girl or boy, should have a lesser opportunity because the board of education that girl or boy is being educated under does not have the bucks for same kinds of programs and teaching equipment or the same number of teachers? Is that the way we want education to run in this province? I think not.

I can recall sitting down with some friends of mine in the teaching business, dedicated educators from an area north of Queen's Park. It is not in the north, but it encompasses an area all the way from Highway 400, when one goes north, to the Bruce Peninsula, when one goes west. One will find school boards in that region have a tough time making a go of it. The reason they have a tough time making a go of it is that they do not have the commercial-industrial assessment. If one does not have that commercial-industrial assessment, one cannot have the same kind of programs.

I know the Ministry of Education, with its grand structure, tries to equalize things. I know it does its best in many ways, but one just cannot find board members at the local level who are willing to plunge in and sink their municipalities and their residents further into debt. They are at the local level. They do not have the same level of service in other areas too, and they have a very difficult time juggling this problem of insufficient funds. That is why I think it is long overdue for us to look very seriously at the pooling of commercial and industrial taxation.

15:30

I know this will become a much more dominant issue in this province. With the extension of funding to the separate school boards, naturally they will say: "If we are going to get public funding, we should be able to give equal education. At the secondary level, we are not getting the money because we do not have that pooling of commercial and industrial taxation."

I think it goes much beyond the separate school system. If we want to go to the heart of this problem, we have to look at all the public school boards in Ontario that do not have the same type of commercial-industrial taxation as those in the larger metropolitan areas. If we were to go to the personal income tax funding of education and if we were to take the pooling of industrial and commercial taxation, we would be going a long way towards beginning to reform and improve education in this province, and we would be bringing in an equitable system.

I think I have covered most of the points I wanted to raise today. I know the minister has listened to me very intently. I even saw him come back into the House after leaving for a few minutes. I want to thank him for doing that.

I also want to thank the Treasurer for paying attention to what I have been saying. At the same time, I hope he will continue to be a Treasurer who is sensitive to the needs of all the people of Ontario. As I saw in the paper on the weekend, he was not really being sensitive to the needs of those people who live in the north when he helped to bring in market value assessment. He will have a story to tell us on this. We all know that, but deep down, the taxpayers of Sudbury know there was a -- I will not say it. I am not going to be small in this House because I do not think there is any place for smallness. I will not say anything small.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to comment on one thing the honourable member said about smallness. The people who might be reading this in Hansard will know that the market value assessment that was carried out in the region of Sudbury did have special attention in that it had to be approved by the Legislature since it was the first one involving a region. The legislation approving that was at the behest and the request of a majority of councillors making up the regional government. It was not unanimous -- I think one or two did not go along with it -- but essentially, they asked for it.

There is no doubt that the situation in Sudbury is unique. For that reason, we were able to supply about $7 million to assist in any of the dislocations associated with that. I even heard one of the people from Sudbury say that that was insufficient. I mention it only to say that it was unique and not precedent-setting. If we are going to be asked to contribute money to smooth the way for reassessment, there will be no end to it.

The municipality of Mississauga, which is a major city, is the largest to have undertaken reassessment. While there were some difficulties, there was no special money available, just the regular legislation that allowed the local municipalities to smooth it out to some degree for those who were most directly affected. Even though over the weekend the mayor was somewhat critical of the professional aspects of the assessment, I think she really does know -- and I assert as minister -- that the assessors have done an excellent job and that they are perfectly and completely professional in their responsibilities.

For a number of reasons of which the member may be aware, I feel it would be very unwise of me to try to use any power the government has or to try to bring legislation before the Legislature that would impose market value assessment on any council. We feel it is the responsibility of the council to decide.

Mr. Gordon: I welcome this opportunity to reply to what the Treasurer just said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Are there any other members who wish to question or comment?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I was interested in the comments of my friend the member for Sudbury about university education in Sudbury. In conjunction with the general fictional nature of his remarks on the bill we are debating today, he seemed to suggest to the House that Laurentian University somehow had been overlooked in conjunction with allocations I have made recently as Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Do we provide our members enough travel allowance so that they can return periodically to their ridings? The member for Sudbury obviously has not been there for quite a while. He obviously is unaware that almost a year ago now, I announced a $4.5-million grant -- I think I am right in the sum -- for Laurentian University in Sudbury to do a major reconstruction of the science building there. Although I did not follow all the remarks of my friend the member for Sudbury on market value, his remarks in that area were as fictional as his statements in conjunction with university education in Sudbury.

Mr. Foulds: Is it parliamentary to say a member's remarks are fictional?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure. I certainly enjoyed the speech. I just wonder whether he has travelled to Sudbury lately and whether he knows what is going on at the university in his riding.

Mr. Gordon: I certainly do travel up there. I am there every weekend, every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I want to tell the Minister of Colleges and Universities that we have to fight for every nickel we get out of any government, whether it is this government or any other government. In the north we always fight. When they hand us $4.5 million to do a science building, they act as though they are building the Taj Mahal. Compared to the amount of money that has flowed out of the north down here, we are getting hardly a pinch back. Nevertheless, let us go back again to the Treasurer.

First, I can recall quite distinctly, as a former mayor bf Sudbury, coming down to Toronto and attempting to get extra funds from the provincial government, because we never seem to have enough. That was a real problem in our community. It was not only that I was doing that, but the other mayors in the region of Sudbury were coming down asking for supplementary funds.

One of the reasons the regional council bought the Treasurer's proposal about market value was that the civil servants behind the scenes were saying: "Look, fellows, we are not going to keep coming up with these extra supplemental funds for municipalities in the region of Sudbury in the future. If you fellows do not hurry up and rectify this assessment problem in the Sudbury region, you are going to find you are not getting the extra funds. The only way you are going to survive is by bringing in market value, and we are going to sweeten the pot by giving you $7 million."

As a result of that, we have pensioners and all kinds of people paying much higher taxes than they should have to pay and it is causing some real hardship. That is the truth of the matter.

Mrs. Marland: On rising to speak on the second reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, I would like to say at the outset that I wish it was that. I wish it was making some very much-needed amendments to the Income Tax Act. A number of areas have been referred to by the Treasurer. One example I will give is of my own referral to an area with which I have very grave concern and I have also heard other areas referred to during this debate which have not been addressed in any way whatsoever.

Since both the previous speakers have referred to the city of Mississauga in the discussion about market value assessment, I must for a moment respond to those comments by the member for Sudbury and the response from the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not on the income tax amendments.

Mrs. Marland: I notice with interest that the Treasurer is saying those comments are not on the income tax amendments. However, I hasten to point out that it was the Treasurer who referred to the matter I am about to address, and the same answer could have been given.

15:40

I will proceed to address for a moment the comments the Treasurer made about the difficulty with market value assessment as it has been experienced in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw to your attention that while I am delighted to hear the member speak, as always, the bill before us is an amendment to the Income Tax Act and has nothing to do with reassessment.

Your attention may have wandered, and you permitted the member for Sudbury to pursue this. At the end of his remarks, I had to respond, because he had dealt with something I thought was out of order, although you are the final arbiter of this. However, for this to become an assessment debate does not seem to be an appropriate use of the time, in spite of the fact that the subject is very important.

The Acting Speaker: You have made your point.

Mrs. Marland: Am I to understand from that comment that the Treasurer thinks there is a different standard available to one member in this House and another as to how far one may veer from the subject at hand? However, a point of order was raised. If the Speaker has recognized it, I will try very hard to adhere to the bill at hand. I may address the subject of market value assessment as an alternative to some forms of the income tax law within this province.

I may like to suggest that in Mississauga people spend their money on different forms of taxation, whether it is through market value assessment on their property taxes or through their income taxes. There are various opinions on the value or the advantage of market value assessment, but there is no variance in their opinion of how it has been implemented in the city.

Grave concern has been expressed by many residents of Mississauga that there seems to be no standard by which assessors are directed to fulfil their responsibilities in assessing properties at market value. It is the great variance and variety of degrees in which the market value assessment has been done in Mississauga that has presented the problem to the people who live there. Those same people have expressed that concern to me on other subjects that pertain to Bill 28.

The Treasurer says it is the responsibility of the local municipality whether it has market value assessment. If that it is true, I also ask whether it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to make sure there is some uniformity in that assessment. While the assessors in Mississauga have tried to fulfil the mandate of their jobs, there has been a tremendous variety in their assessing whether market value is impacted purely by the square footage of the structure on a residential lot or whether it is by the condition of the inside of that structure.

We have found that some of the assessment staff are interested in whether a house has additional bathrooms, finished recreation rooms, etc., while others say the interior of the house is of no concern to them and they are simply going to assess the value based on the square footage of the house. This has caused a great deal of concern for the people of Mississauga, as has the whole process for appealing their assessments through the assessment review board. This is a subject that will be addressed in this House in further detail.

In the meantime, perhaps what the province should be looking at through the Ministry of Treasury and Economics is what alternatives there might be in terms of tax reform. As part of that tax reform, I hope the Treasurer will give direction to his staff that, while addressing income tax reforms in this bill, they will also address property tax reforms.

On June 19 I wrote to the Treasurer on behalf of one of my constituents in particular, but on behalf of many who had raised the same issue with me. I received a reply from the Treasurer on August 5. This constituent brought to my attention very capably current taxation in this province -- and I recognize it is also a federal issue -- dealing with the deduction for child care or day care expenses. This constituent of mine is a female solicitor. Because she has expressed the matter very capably in her letter, I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, while I refer to one portion of it, which deals very clearly with the subject of Bill 28 as it affects the people of Ontario.

This letter is over the signature of Ann J. Watson, who is a solicitor in the firm of Jackson, Watson and Lane on Lakeshore Road East in Mississauga.

She says: "It was with great distress that I discovered the extent of the child care deduction which is available for working parents who choose to have a family and continue to work full-time. Not only must I pay my baby-sitter out of my net tax dollars, but I must be able to afford to pay her enough that she can receive an adequate wage after paying her income tax, unemployment insurance and Canada pension benefits, and the employer's portion thereof, together with workers' compensation benefits.

"The child care deduction, which is a deduction from income only and not a tax credit, is in my situation limited to $2,000. In an age when affordable day care and adequate day care wages are a debated issue both provincially and federally, why should I, as a self-employed person, be able to deduct my secretary and my pens and pencils from my gross earnings and not be able to deduct my child care worker? Certainly, my child care worker is just as important to me in allowing me to carry on business as is my office equipment.

"The income tax laws as they now stand maintain a policy of discrimination against the working family, a situation which, in my view, is intolerable in an age which has seen the introduction of the Charter of Rights and equality legislation generally."

That is the end of the quote from Ms. Watson's letter, but I think it points out very clearly that the problem with the income tax act as it exists today in Ontario is that it is the middle-class income earner who bears the burden of taxation.

In referring Ms. Watson's letter to the Treasurer as I did, I should mention I referred it also to the federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, as we wanted to discuss work-related expenses for taxation purposes.

In the Treasurer's reply to me, he said:

"I agree with Ms. Watson's general sentiments that the child care expense deduction is not properly meeting the needs of today's society. Ontario has been examining this deduction in the context of other family-related tax measures and as part of the broader issue of accessible child care. As I announced in my budget, the whole issue of the province's role in providing child care services is currently under full review. The federal government has just announced its intention to undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system, a review which Ontario has been advocating for some time. The child care expense deduction is a good example of the types of issues that must be addressed as part of this review, and Ontario intends to pursue this and other related social concerns through its participation in the reform exercise."

15:50

What I have to ask the Treasurer is this: when does he see this full review being done by his ministry and in conjunction later with the federal minister?

I appreciate the fact that there is a recognition here that the child care expense deduction is not properly meeting the needs of today's society. The very fact that we have the socioeconomic climate that we have makes it very difficult and almost impossible today for young couples to have a family and to work. I suggest that every level of government has a tremendous responsibility to the future of this province and of this country in terms of these young families. I know taxation is a burden for all ages and for all families, but in this area I am addressing the young families in particular because they are of child-bearing age. Our socioeconomic climate requires that both husband and wife work today, not necessarily to have a very high standard of living but to have a comfortable standard of living, and purely and simply even to purchase a home.

If we are going to believe in families and in the family as the focus of our lives, as the Progressive Conservative Party does in this province, we have to do whatever we can to protect those families and every aspect of their lives. It is with grave concern that I look at a young family that is trying to buy a house, or even pay rent in some other form of accommodation. They struggle, with both incomes, to pay for day care and child care supervision services. It is not an area where they have a choice. It used to be that day care services were looked upon as a baby-sitting service, as a luxury, so the mother could go to her coffee clubs, and perhaps, if she was fortunate, get out to play tennis or golf or to curl or whatever.

Those days are long gone. Day care services in this province are no longer a luxury; they are a necessity. Since they are a necessity, it would be fair to recognize that a $2,000 deduction for day care, when the actual cost of that day care to many families can be as high as $5,000, is simply not adequate; it is simply not fair and not suitable.

Perhaps the Treasurer will be able to tell us when the full review will be done that he refers to in his letter to me of two months ago, what he plans to do during his review and what kind of answer I can give my constituents in Mississauga South who bear this burden today as middle-income families.

I have appreciated the opportunity to present at least that one area of concern of the people whom I represent. I wish that the next bill any government in Ontario brings forth to amend the Income Tax Act will address the concerns of the people who pay income tax in this province and that, jointly with the federal government, there will be the relief that is needed. I hope there will be the recognition, as a previous speaker said this afternoon, that not everything must be the burden of and fall upon the income tax and that not everything must be directed by government on the middle-income earner, who seems to have fewer concessions overall.

That this government has chosen to continue the three per cent surtax on the basic Ontario income tax is a direction we feel is regrettable, because that three per cent surtax had an automatic expiry date. It seems this government has chosen to continue it for an indefinite period. These myriad of surcharges and special calculations that comprise Ontario's income tax today make it very complicated. Income tax is no longer seen as equitable, because the larger burden falls on the middle-income class.

I am not proud that Ontario is the second-highest-taxed province in Canada. The current government should see it as its very real responsibility to change that.

Mr. Foulds: I have three questions to place to the previous speaker. Would the member care to outline the federal Tory government's position on the funding of day care centres? Will she give the House her definition of "middle-income earner"? Where would she like the additional burden of taxation to be placed, if it is not on income tax? Would she like it shifted to property tax? Would she like it shifted to corporate income tax? Would she like it shifted to Ontario health insurance plan premiums? Would she like it shifted to sales tax? Perhaps the honourable member can answer those questions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would also like to comment. I appreciate the member for Mississauga South referring to the child care-day care situation, which is emerging more and more as an important issue and which will undoubtedly be before the House for the next few years as a substantial, expensive and important emerging issue.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has indicated that his officials and others are working on a policy statement on behalf of the government; it was referred to in the budget in May. There was just a line in the budget because our previous commitment for 10,000 new day care places to be distributed across the province is just now being fulfilled, but even that large number is in many ways a sort of patch on the situation. The federal government has a report that indicates a mature day care system will cost as much as $11 billion in addition to what is payable now.

I read an article, I think by Rosemary Speirs, in the Toronto Star last week, indicating that she thought or had heard the federal government was withdrawing from its commitment to support such programs under the Canada assistance plan. I sincerely hope and trust that is not the case, because any initiatives taken in Ontario must surely count on at least 50 per cent support, if not better, from the government of Canada.

The matter is important, and income tax will be one of the sources for funding any new program initiatives.

Mrs. Marland: In reply to the New Democratic Party member's question about what the federal Tory government is doing, let me say that since I am elected in Ontario as a member of this Legislature, I do not get to speak on behalf of the federal government. That would be very presumptuous of me, and I would not wish to comment. I am encouraged, however, that the federal government is at least looking at a review of its income tax legislation.

In reply to the honourable member's question about where I would see taxation falling and whether I would like to see it on property taxes or OHIP premiums, etc., naturally, I would not like to see it on property taxes. The direction that has been taken, unfortunately, is that more and more taxation has been falling on the property tax base at the municipal level. I find it very interesting that the NDP member asked what I would do with OHIP premiums, since the NDP was among the group that would like to abandon OHIP premiums altogether. I would ask them, who would then be paying for health care in this province?

16:00

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by the honourable members on this bill. The criticism that it does not go far enough by way of reform is valid. It is simply a minor change, although the continuation of the surtax indefinitely is a very serious matter, as the honourable members have pointed out. It will return something like $26 million in one full year, which is about what we spend in one day on medical service. While it is a huge amount of money, as a source of income in the general scheme of things its relevancy fades a bit.

It is, however, an increased imposition on those earners at the top end of the scale. The member for Mississauga South, from her particular ambience, might see it as middle income, but we think a taxable income of more than $50,000 is in the upper range, and we feel an additional responsibility there is not untoward.

However, in response to valid comments made from both official opposition parties, I would also say that the more long-term impact of tax reform is something of great importance. Michael Wilson has indicated that the government of Canada has a program whereby much heavier responsibility for revenues will be moved to a sort of sales tax, which we have always felt was somewhat regressive. This concerns us, particularly since his emphasis on other sources of revenue seems to have been downgraded somewhat.

Honourable members will know I am going to Edmonton later this week to meet with the other treasurers under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilson in a continuing ad hoc committee of treasurers, which I find extremely interesting and helpful. We will have an opportunity, as treasurers, to talk about our views of what the tax reform will be in the next few months and the next couple of years, but there is quite a commitment by the government of Ontario, as expressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and myself, that a thorough-going tax reform is under way.

We hope to co-ordinate it with the government of Canada and our sister provinces, particularly Quebec. We do not feel the necessity of being in some sort of lockstep with the other provinces and the government of Canada, although we have found more and more frequently that paralleling federal initiatives, particularly in corporation tax, is a method of simplifying the returns for business people which is quite productive.

Both federal and provincial governments are interested in maintaining revenue, but we particularly want fairness, justice, equity and simplicity. We think those can be accomplished with the co-operation and advice of all concerned, particularly those in this House.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by honourable members, and I hope they will give this bill passage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill provides for increases to the rate of tax on both cigarettes and cut tobacco. The new rate of tax on cigarettes will be 2.83 cents per cigarette, which represents an increase of 0.13 cents from the old rate of 2.70 cents per cigarette. The new rate of tax on cut tobacco will be 1.6 cents per gram or part thereof, which represents an increase of 0.1 cent from the old tax rate of 1.5 cents per gram.

The aforementioned increases will be effective as of January 1, 1987. No additional tax will be required in respect of the cigarette and cut tobacco inventory held by tobacco wholesalers and retailers at the time of the tax rate change.

The bill contains a provision requiring the filing of information, returns by tobacco manufacturers, importers and wholesale dealers, to assist in the administration and enforcement of the act.

Mr. Stevenson: I wish to make a few comments regarding this bill, the amendment to the Income Tax Act. Again, my comments will relate not totally to the changes themselves but also to the impact of the industry, what this increase will do to the industry, and some comments relating to how we would like to see spent some of the revenue from the tobacco tax.

If one goes back a few years, one can find all sorts of quotes from our Treasurer of today scoffing at the previous government for spending less money on the agricultural budget than was obtained from the tobacco tax revenue from that part of that province. It was sort of living off the avails, if one wanted to put it that way. We can find quotes as recent as the last election campaign, talking quite extensively about the agricultural budget being less than the revenue from tobacco tax. In fact, he used that theme in a number of speeches in agricultural ridings around the province, and I suppose one could say he used them quite effectively in certain areas.

Now we see the same person today bringing in an act to increase the tobacco tax once again. I suppose the tobacco farmers of Ontario would not be terribly concerned about that if part of the revenue were being used more effectively to deal with the problems that governments have created in the tobacco industry.

We know -- and it has been in the media quite frequently in the past couple of years -- about the restructuring that is going on in the tobacco-growing areas of the province. The Treasurer is familiar with those, because he represents part of that area. My colleagues the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who also represent part of the tobacco-growing area, have brought the economic stresses from that area to my attention many times, and I have visited that area at least twice in the past year and a half to talk to the tobacco growers about some of the problems. Just a few months ago, I spoke there at a meeting.

These economic stresses do not affect just the producers but also whole communities. It shows up in the businesses of those areas and the whole social fabric of the tobacco-growing part of the province. I do not mean to suggest that government taxation and government actions have been the only reasons for the necessary restructuring in the tobacco industry, but most certainly government taxation has been an important part of it.

16:10

If certain members of our society decide, by their own personal choice, that they are going to smoke, I do not know that it is really up to the farmers of Ontario to worry about the moral or health issues involved. If there is a market there and it is legal to produce that product, then our people should have every option available to them to grow tobacco and to make tobacco products.

Now that the industry is being restructured, it seems that since the governments of the day have shared very greatly in the wealth from the tobacco industry, they should now be prepared to share quite significantly in the restructuring of that industry and the economic problems of those communities as that particular industry winds down.

We know the amount of tobacco that will be produced in this province in the future will decrease fairly significantly. Undoubtedly, the industry will continue to exist for many years, but until that shakedown occurs, there will be very considerable stresses on the producers, on the families and on the communities in the tobacco-growing areas.

In the budget of this year, we see that revenue from the tobacco tax is estimated to be $590 million. From comments coming from the Treasury, we know the Treasurer has quite conveniently underestimated his revenues for this year to the tune of about $800 million. I fully suspect the $590 million is probably more than $600 million of total revenue from the tobacco tax.

That happens to be on page 51 of the budget. These are not Tory or New Democratic Party figures; these are figures coming right from the Treasurer's budget. It is the budget that was read here in this Legislature, with the Treasurer's own name placed on the front.

If we go from page 51 over to page 39, we see that the total budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is $457 million. By simple subtraction, we can see that the total agricultural budget for this province includes direct assistance to farmers; the salary and overhead of all the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food employees, approximately 1,500 of them; all the financial assistance to the whole marketing division of the ministry; research at the University of Guelph, the Ontario Agricultural College; all the colleges of agricultural technology around the province, and on and on. All those programs add up to $457 million.

Tobacco revenues are $590 million or, as I say, probably more than $600 million, leaving a difference between those two figures of $133 million this year alone. Very clearly, the Treasurer and this government continue to do the sort of thing the Treasurer condemned in previous years and in speeches right up to election time, as I mentioned before. Now, when he has the chance to do something about it, to put a significant amount of money into that part of the province, he has clearly declined to do so.

In looking at the programs brought forward by this government to try to assist the tobacco-growing areas, we see it brought in a $6 million program called farmers in transition. I believe it was $6 million over three years. It has been used to some small degree of success in certain parts of the province, but I can recall hardly one favourable comment about the FIT program in the tobacco-growing area of the province. The main intention of the program was to help this area, which was mentioned in the announcement of the program. It has been an embarrassment to the government in that area.

A few months ago, the government said it was going to phase out the program. It now appears that it is not, and it obviously is a program that it wished had been much more successful. If it could redo the program, I am sure it would be brought back in a very different form. There we are talking about $6 million over three years and here we are talking about a difference between the agricultural budget and the tobacco revenue of $133 million per year.

In July 1986, the government announced a $930,000 program, again over three years, to try to analyse the problems in the tobacco area. Most of that money will go for a study and not to the farmers or the community. It is intended that the study come up with ideas of alternative crops for that area so that farmers can diversify or, in many cases, I suspect, get right out of tobacco growing. Anyone who realizes the significance of the problem in the tobacco-growing areas will realize that $930,000 over three years is clearly not going to be a significant amount. Although that job needs to be done, once again I am afraid the press release is at least as important as the program itself in the eyes of this government.

Those are my main comments on the bill. It is rather sad to see the actions of this Treasurer flying in the face of everything he has said over the past several years and to see him increasing revenues at this time. As I have said in discussions on previous bills, the government has had about a 25 per cent increase in revenue over two years. Very few individuals have an increase in disposable income of 25 per cent in two years.

This government has here an economic windfall and it is fortunate enough to be in the position to utilize it. Most previous governments have not had that sort of economic fortune. Again, it is taking a grab from the tobacco tax and not putting it back into the industry to help it restructure and cope with the great decrease in tobacco usage. Part of this decrease is because of health interests and part is because of increased taxation. If the government wants to increase the taxes, that is fine, but let us put a big slice of that money back into the tobacco-growing areas to help these families and communities cope with that very significant economic restructuring that is going on there.

16:20

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to make a couple of points. The honourable member makes the argument as I used to make it, I think both of us with equal effect, that the government might consider at least spending on agriculture what it takes in through tobacco tax. We have done two things to move towards that.

One was to abandon the ad valorem tax on tobacco, which I believe was set at 45 per cent plus sales tax, which was a real revenue generator, as the member will know. We have repealed that, and this is the first time we have come in with a specific tax that is directly in step with the rate of inflation. In fact, the net revenue increase over a year will be less than $30 million. That is a very significant amount of money in absolute terms, but as I said of the last bill, it is less than one day's cost for our health system. The relevance of the increase is not as great as one might otherwise think.

The member also mentioned the farmers in transition program. Far from being disappointed in it, we were delighted with its effectiveness and we were quite honoured when the government of Canada picked it up in almost precise detail and implemented it for the whole of the country. The only reason we backed off from part of it was that we felt it was a needless duplication to be doing at our expense what the federal government was prepared to do in all the provinces, including Ontario. The parts we left in were those that were not covered by the federal government's rather later initiative. I want to be sure that is understood. I will reply in a more general way to the member's comments at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other questions? Does the member for Durham-York have any further response to the minister? He has up to two minutes.

Mr. Stevenson: The Treasurer comes back with an argument I would have expected him to make in light of the situation. It is still very clear that at a time when agriculture in general is in the most significant economic upheaval and stress it has been exposed to since the Depression in the 1930s and when the agricultural communities of this province are in a serious situation, a Treasurer from that area continues to do the things he spoke so much against in previous positions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: However, we increased the Agriculture and Food budget by 39 per cent.

Mr. Stevenson: Yes, and in the year when other provinces --

Miss Stephenson: It is not 39 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is.

Miss Stephenson: The Treasurer should stop perpetuating that figure.

Mr. Stevenson: The past three increases in the agricultural budget have been 16 per cent, 21 per cent and 13 per cent. The last increase of 13 per cent is the lowest in three years, at a time when other governments are increasing it well into double figures, Alberta by 75 per cent in one year and Saskatchewan by 100 per cent in one year. This year's increase, 13 per cent, is the lowest in three budgets. The Treasurer is not responding to the agricultural need at all. I am sure he will not make up the $133 million in this year; so pretty well everything he has said in the past were wasted words. He is not doing what he promised he would do.

Mr. McGuigan: As a former tobacco grower and also a member for an area where there are a considerable number of tobacco growers still operating, I should point out a couple of points to members. Production is going down in Ontario, but a number of items have been responsible for that. Concern about health is one that is mentioned and one the government should be concerned about. In spite of that, consumption of tobacco in Ontario is actually going up. While a great many older people are giving up smoking tobacco, the number of young people coming on is more than making up for it. It is especially disturbing to see in the statistics that the greatest increase in lung cancer now is amongst women because young girls and women are smoking on a par with or more than on a par with men. The biggest loss as far as the production of tobacco in Ontario is concerned comes from the loss of export markets. These markets are not affected by the tobacco tax because we have no way of applying the taxes in foreign countries.

I bleed along with other members when I talk to tobacco growers and realize how badly they have been hurt by these losses of acreage and poundage. In Kent county, we grow burley-type tobacco, which is a strong tobacco. It is the tobacco our grandfathers probably smoked in a pipe years ago. This tobacco has not been grown for the past two years because the market for burley has almost disappeared. It is a tobacco that is largely exported. Other countries, especially those that have large supplies of labour, now have learned how to grow and grade the tobacco. The advantage we had over the past number of years was that we were able to grade and prepare the tobacco better than other countries. They now are doing it themselves.

I urge the government to make every move it possibly can to alleviate the position in which tobacco growers find themselves. It is largely a matter of a transition. We have to find other crops for them to grow. I mentioned to my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) a little while ago that perhaps some of the farmers who now are being displaced largely because of actions in other countries such as the United States and in the European Community could go into producing seedlings. Tobacco growers are particularly adept at producing seedlings. They start the tobacco plants in a greenhouse. Perhaps we could produce seedlings in some of these greenhouses. Some farmers could find a place in reforestation and management of forests. I understand the problem is not so much in planting the tree as caring for it afterwards. We have a pool of people who have the knowledge and expertise and like an outdoor life. It might alleviate that situation.

In closing, I bring to the members' attention that activities beyond the shores of Ontario and Canada affect tobacco growers far more than actions taken here in Ontario.

16:30

Mr. McNeil: Before I start my remarks, I would like to say I was interested to read in an issue of the local Times-Journal last week that the Treasurer had visited the city of St. Thomas for two hours during the 1971 election campaign and promised the Liberal candidate that he would be a member of a 12-member cabinet. I do not know whether he remembers that, but I thought I should remind him of it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was going to have five ministers of agriculture, as I recall.

Mr. McNeil: The thing that impressed me most was the fact that he thought he would have a 12-member cabinet.

It is very interesting that Bill 32 enacts the proposal contained in the May budget to increase the rate of tax on cigarettes from 2.7 cents to 2.83 cents per cigarette and on tobacco other than cigarettes or cigars from 1.5 cents per gram to 1.6 cents per gram. I understand these changes will result in $5 million in additional revenue for the government in 1986-87 and $27 million in 1987-88.

I also recognize the fact that we have many people in this province who would like to see the tax increased to such an extent that the consumption of the product would be completely eliminated. Many question the possibility of this happening. I suppose we could discuss for ever the elimination of tobacco and liquor taxes, known for a long time as the sin taxes. I doubt if the increase in taxes will ever eliminate the production or consumption of these products. I have stopped it, but my age is responsible for that.

We must and should recognize that these products produce a great deal of revenue for our province, which in turn will be used for various social services that are so needed and essential to the welfare of our citizens. Just think what might happen to our economy if we should put all our tobacco farmers out of business. Just think what will happen to those lands in southwestern Ontario where high-quality tobacco is being produced by professionals who understand the industry and who have transformed what was a rather nonproductive agricultural area in the 1920s into one of the highest productive areas in our province.

I had an opportunity a few years ago to participate in trade missions to promote the sale of tobacco in overseas markets, markets that recognized the quality of our tobacco, with its desired nicotine-tar ratio, but unfortunately we found we could not compete in these markets because of our production costs, which are much higher than in some of the other tobacco-growing areas of the world.

I ask the Treasurer, who must have a great appreciation of the industry since he represents one of the largest tobacco-growing areas in the province, that this increased money be used not only to promote export markets but also to assist industries to locate in the areas that are being affected by the depressed economic conditions facing our tobacco farmers.

Unfortunately, many citizens in our province do not understand or appreciate the contribution farmers have made to the economy in this province. Never before have I seen farmers so depressed and downhearted. Low prices, increased input costs and difficult marketing conditions this fall have had a devastating effect on all our farmers, including tobacco farmers. We should and must recognize that farmers engaged in agriculture have made an outstanding contribution to our province.

I re-emphasize that we produce tobacco of the highest quality of any produced in the world. I recommend that the Treasurer and his government continue to support a program of exporting this high-quality tobacco, which in turn will assist the economy of this province. The agricultural industry, including tobacco farmers, has made and will continue to make a great contribution to our economy. The members of the government should never allow the industry to die. It appears they are determined to do just that, with increased taxation. In fact, it appears they are trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

The Treasurer may be interested to know that, to cut expenses, the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board decided this fall to close a warehouse in the town of Aylmer, which is in my riding, five miles from my home. That decision will have a devastating result on the economy of that area. Tobacco farmers who in the past have shipped to the warehouse in Aylmer will now be shipping further, with the result that they will have increased costs of production. This is very detrimental to the industry at a time when it is suffering economic stress.

The Treasurer may say that under our system, hearings did take place before the appeal tribunal. After the hearings concluded, the tribunal decided the exchange should be closed. The unfortunate part of this whole exercise was that the growers in the area were never consulted before a decision was made. With the difficult economic problems farmers are facing, it would have been good common sense to hold meetings in the tobacco area being affected and to explain to those tobacco farmers the reasons for this closure.

Mr. McGuigan: The farmers threw out the board the other day.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Including the chairman.

Mr. McNeil: I think that is a reflection of the fact they were not satisfied with what was happening. Unfortunately, our tobacco farmers, along with all farmers, are experiencing serious economic problems. I implore the Treasurer to use this increase to assist an industry that makes a great financial contribution and really needs assistance at present.

Mr. Harris: I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and indicate to the Legislature not only my support for the position he put forward but also that of our party and the concerns we have. The lack of consultation he talked about seems typical of this government and this Treasurer. They seem to consult by the form of putting out a press release saying, "We are consulting."

When it comes down to being out in the field and consulting with those affected, this is not an isolated case or example of a government by press release. A government that operates that way will be a short-lived government and one that will get its just rewards. I did not want to let the opportunity pass without echoing those concerns as put forward by the member for Elgin.

16:40

Mr. Speaker: Is there any response?

Mr. McGuigan: I have to comment on the remarks of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing was commenting on the comments by the member for Elgin. Are there any other members wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. Foulds: In the debate or on the comments?

Mr. Speaker: In the debate.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, please. I rise to indicate our support for the bill. I do not think there is a more difficult topic that meets members of the Legislature than this bill. All of us understand the difficulty currently faced by the tobacco industry, both the farmers and those working in the tobacco industry. There will be periods of job dislocation, and there will be a downturn in the tobacco industry. That has less to do with taxation, which is what we are discussing at present, than with the current attitude towards smoking.

There has been a monumental change in the attitude of society, in the western world at least, towards smoking in the past 15 years, probably larger than any other single social change. It is simply not acceptable these days to smoke; it is not cool. We do not see movie heroes sticking a cigarette in the corner of their mouths as they pursue the killers, as Humphrey Bogart did back in the 1930s, the 1940s and even unto the 1950s. Now it is simply frowned upon. I notice the change in aircraft; there are now a lot more nonsmoking seats than there are smoking seats.

I have a good deal of sympathy, and I want to put that on the record, for those in the tobacco industry who face change and who are going to continue to face change. I hope that not only this government but also the federal government will do what they can with their farm assistance programs and with other programs to help lessen the dislocation in the industry. That is just as important for those men and women who work in our tobacco factories as it is for those who work on our tobacco farms.

It is a difficult issue because we know that smoking is hazardous to health and, therefore, the solution of exporting tobacco to the Third World in large quantities is not a solution to the production problem. It may be a short-term solution to the problem from a selfish and internal point of view, but that is, from a selfish and internal point of view, in a country that, by and large, is already wealthy. I feel some chagrin when I see multinational tobacco corporations targeting the Third World as a potential market to make up for the loss of markets in North America and in western Europe. I do not think that is a very good thing to do. It is callous and calculating and not a solution to the problem.

To speak specifically about the act, I am glad to see the Treasurer is not trying to use taxation as a method of making a moral statement. I think it is wrong to use taxation, and excessive taxation at that, as a prohibitive tool, whether it be on drinking or on smoking. We need to have other legislative means and tools of societal changes.

For example, I believe taxing tobacco too heavily is very regressive, because most of the people who continue to smoke are in low-income families. One of the reasons that occurs is that a lot of people who have no hope in this society seek crutches to maintain hope. One of those crutches is smoking. That happens to a number of people, not only for economic reasons but also for social and emotional reasons.

I understand the difficulty the Treasurer personally finds himself in when it comes to debating this bill, because he recalls very well when what are now productive farm lands growing tobacco were not productive lands. A number of people in our province who have had the opportunity to drive through what are now the productive tobacco lands automatically think of them as being fertile and productive lands, but it was not always so. For many years in the 1920s and the 1930s, they were essentially nonproductive agricultural lands.

Tobacco at that time was one of the few crops that could be grown, and it turned those lands into a rich agricultural region. It is our challenge at present, as a society and as a province, to find other productive agricultural uses to make the transition for the farmers in that area worth while, possible and productive.

I noticed a couple of months ago a small article in the financial section of the Toronto Star, of all papers, which reported a transition into tomato growing, I believe, and a small factory associated with that, on former tobacco lands. It is that kind of transition and that kind of encouragement that give us the added production, when we get into the processing of the tomatoes into tomato paste and so on, at which we should be looking.

Once again, I do not think we should use taxation as a method of punishing people because they smoke. We should be finding ways to encourage people not to smoke, and we should be using taxation simply as a method of rightfully gaining revenue. When we look at the tobacco tax in that way, we should be looking at it simply as a revenue getter that is justified. There comes a point where, frankly, the taxation is too high and is unjustified. I do not think the Treasurer has reached that point. The modest increase he has suggested in this bill is justified, but he has come, cautiously and carefully, as close to the line as he can.

Mr. Ashe: I will be very brief in addressing a few remarks to Bill 32, because much of what I was going to say has already been said.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: By the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds).

Mr. Ashe: Some of it was, yes, but some of it bears repeating.

I take a little exception to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) earlier in one of his rebuttals, we will call it -- his two-minute opportunity -- when he seemed to take great credit in removing the ad valorem principle from some of the taxes in Ontario, including the tobacco tax. The reason I take exception is that there is no doubt they went through the charade of removing the ad valorem, but it did not mean anything.

With this new increase, I suggest, the tobacco tax per cigarette is just as high as or higher than it would have been in the ad valorem system. We know for sure that in the Gasoline Tax Act and the Fuel Tax Act, the taxes are at their highest levels, thanks to the grandiose gesture by the Treasurer in removing the ad valorem principle just as the price was heading down. We want to make it abundantly clear to the taxpayers of Ontario that by removing the ad valorem principle, they are not paying less but are paying more; this is no more obvious than in the Gasoline Tax Act, the Fuel Tax Act and probably to a lesser degree in the Tobacco Tax Act.

16:50

Having said that, I find a plus in this bill. It is not the increases in particular. I happen to be one who is a nonsmoker and from a personal point of view would not care whether this was doubled or tripled. However, there is no doubt it does have an effect on people.

In section 2 of the bill, it says, "Every person who is a manufacturer, importer or wholesale dealer of tobacco shall deliver to the minister, without notice or demand, such returns at such time and in such manner as the regulations prescribe." I presume this is to give more teeth to the minister and the ministry in the policing aspect of the ministry, to try to make it less likely and less opportunistic for a wholesaler or some other middleman to purchase cigarettes at a lower price in another province and bring them in and retail them at a significant profit without putting revenues into the provincial Treasury. Anything that cuts down opportunities for illegal operations is a step in the right direction.

One looks at the additional revenues this tax increase will generate. As was pointed out before, it is some $5 million in this partial tax year, because the new tax rate does not come into effect until January 1, and some $27 million in the next fiscal year, 1987-88. I suggest, as others have pointed out, that these additional revenues should be used in the way of educating people -- educating our students, for example -- to an even greater degree to the problems associated with the use of tobacco.

Although the Treasurer may look on that as spending money, I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), supported in general by the medical profession and the Canadian Lung Association, would suggest to him that this is a very low investment for a very high rate of return, one that is probably much better than on the current issue of Canada savings bonds. One cannot track it; I acknowledge that. This is what always makes those kinds of political decisions rather difficult. However, over the years, the savings to the health care system would be a great return on that investment.

As far as the tobacco-growing industry in Ontario is concerned, we already recognize that it is a shrinking industry. The sooner we and the industry accept that and take an alternative course, the better for the province, the better for the growers and the better for the industry. I am not one of those who support throwing money at the industry so it can carry it on by way of subsidies to a product that, in my view, is not helpful to the community.

I do agree that those, particularly the farmers and those associated at the next immediate level in the community, who now are in the tobacco industry and have relied on it for quite a number of years for all or a significant part of their income, need assistance to change over to another product, whether, as was mentioned earlier, it is tomatoes or whether it is an industry that I know had some spark a few years ago, but probably has been withering on the vine, and that is peanuts. I thought it was an excellent commodity that was very tasty and was grown in Ontario.

I am not an expert in these matters to the extent that the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue is, but that is the place where we should be putting subsidies, not into an industry that we must recognize is on the decline in this province and that probably only has one way to go, which is down even further.

The farmers and the industry should be helped but not by throwing good money after bad. They should be helped to relocate into other products or another industry. They will have to accept that although it might even be more productive and profitable to grow marijuana, they cannot go into that either. Possibly their tobacco-growing income cannot be continued and maintained. They may have to lower that standard somewhat with other products. In the meantime, as the Treasurer is doing in other ways by subsidizing assistance to change a commodity, he can do it here with the additional revenue generated with Bill 32.

We will be supporting the bill because it is reasonable and responsible. However, I must emphasize that I take great umbrage that the Treasurer is taking credit for the removal of the ad valorem principle at a time when he is increasing taxes generally.

Mr. Sterling: May I say at the outset that I will support the bill on second reading, but that I will put to the Treasurer certain amendments to his bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He does not want it to go to committee.

Mr. Sterling: I will move it to committee, depending on the Treasurer's reaction to my suggestions. Many people know of my advocacy against secondhand smoking because of my Non-Smokers' Protection Act, which is in the standing committee on general government of this Legislature at present.

I am concerned about the great number of premature deaths occurring today in this province because of firsthand and secondhand smoke. Today 30 to 40 individuals will die before their time because of smoking. We cannot treat this matter lightly any more. I believe this government is turning a blind eye to the problem and to addressing the problems associated with the use of tobacco.

The elimination of this health problem has been recognized by the World Health Organization, as far back as 1975, as being the most significant preventive health care measure that a modern industrial society can take. When we address this difficult problem, I hope we can do it in a reasonable and logical manner and cover all the bases that need to be covered.

I would like to point out the areas where we must attack the consumption of tobacco in this province. I assume the Treasurer agrees with me that the consumption of tobacco is not to the benefit of the 10,000 or 12,000 people in Ontario who die prematurely because of this habit.

First, we have to deal with the control of secondhand smoke, control in the work place and control in the public place. As I have said, I have proposed Bill 71, which does just that. In the past, we have tried to use the route of education. Unfortunately, that is not meeting the desired results of both labour and management, as we learned from the public representations to the standing committee on general government in September.

This bill is not about the regulation of the work place or public place. It is to control secondhand smoke. All the issues are intermingled. There are other problems which should be addressed as well. I will outline them to the Treasurer and I hope he will take my suggestion in dealing with the tobacco tax. Perhaps he will not take it this time, but perhaps he will take it when he addresses the problem again next year.

First, we have to deal with the tobacco industry. I include, of course, the tobacco farmers. Again, by turning a blind eye to the health problem, which I believe this government is doing, it is also turning a blind eye to the tobacco farmer, to the tobacco industry and to the plight the farmers face at this time. When the quota for the amount of tobacco that they could sell drops from 170 million pounds to 150 million pounds, it shows how much each individual tobacco farmer will suffer because of that reduction in quota.

We must help those who are addicted to nicotine. Anyone who has done any research in this area says the majority of smokers are addicted to this habit. It is an addiction and, therefore, it takes a lot of determination to get off that addiction. The greatest hope we can have is that we can prevent young people from starting to smoke. I am going to say a few more words about young people who are starting to smoke in this province. Those people are increasing at an alarming rate, particularly in the last year.

Last, we must continue to educate our young people in particular about the ill effects of taking up the habit of smoking.

17:00

What has this government done to address any of these problems? First, let me deal with smoking in public places and smoking in the work place. On smoking in public places, the government has washed its hands and allowed municipalities to deal with that on a one-by-one basis. Do members realize that if every municipality dealt with this particular problem, we would have 840 or more different laws dealing with smoking across this province?

In respect of smoking in the work place, no one has done anything about it in this province, but it will come, as we face the issue and as employees assert their rights. As we have heard in terms of the Canada Labour Code, there is litigation going on in that area right now.

How does taxation tie in when we deal with the rate of consumption of tobacco? I noticed the member for Port Arthur saying we should not use taxation to deal with the consumption of tobacco, but what many members of this Legislature have missed is that while the present increase in tobacco tax does keep up with the rate of inflation over the past year, the Treasurer's first budget in October 1985 did not keep up with the rate of inflation.

Thus, when we went into the year starting January 1, 1986, which was covered in the last bill, it was, in effect, a decrease in the real price of cigarettes caused by the one-cent-a-pack increase in tobacco tax in the October 1985 budget. If the Treasurer had kept up with inflation, he would have increased the price of a pack of cigarettes by some 18 cents more. By keeping that price up, he might have stemmed the flow of young people taking up the habit, as happened in unprecedented numbers in this province in 1986.

I draw the Legislature's attention to a number of documents that relate to the fact that as the price of cigarettes goes up, consumption goes down. A number of studies have shown this.

Recommendation 4 of the report by the Ontario Council of Health in 1982, Smoking and Health in Ontario: A Need for Balance, says, "It is recommended that the government of Ontario take action to ensure that the retail price of cigarettes be doubled within a 12-month period by means of three phased tax increases in basic taxation of tobacco products and ensure through taxation that the price of cigarettes keeps up with inflation thereafter."

That is what an ad valorem tax was all about, actually, about keeping the tax up with the rate of inflation. If there was ever an argument for an ad valorem tax, it was probably on tobacco because of the fact that if we do not keep up with inflation, we decrease the price and encourage people to take up the habit.

Dr. Warner of the University of Michigan has recently done a study -- this is a paper published in February 1986 -- on the increase of taxation in the United States on tobacco versus consumption. I will read a couple of statements that come from this particular report:

"The total price elasticity," and that is the way it goes up or down, "exhibits a pattern of price responsiveness decreasing with age, as it would be expected for three reasons.

"1. Teenagers and young adults have smoking habits that are less well defined and of shorter duration, implying less habituation or addiction and hence the potential for more price responsiveness. That means they have not got hooked on the habit. Therefore, when the price goes up, there is more likelihood they will stop buying cigarettes.

"2. Young people may be more inclined to start smoking as a result of a price decrease than would older adults. That is what has happened in Ontario over the past year. I will refer to those statistics shortly.

"3. On average, younger people will have less disposable income, so that a price response may include more of an income effect. Therefore, because of the smaller disposable income that a youngster has, when the price goes up, there is a very good likelihood that he will forgo cigarettes in his priority of spending."

What has happened with regard to consumption over the past two or three years in our province? In 1983, a survey of 12-year-olds to 29-year-olds in Ontario indicated that 31.3 per cent of those youngsters were smokers. I guess I can call them "youngsters," as well as you can, Mr. Speaker. In 1984, that dropped to 30 per cent. In 1985, it went up slightly to 30.5 per cent. From 1985 to 1986, it went up to 36.6 per cent, a dramatic increase of 20 per cent in the number of young smokers in our province.

What has happened in the rest of Canada? In each and every region and province, the number of young smokers has dropped. It is significant to note that over that same period of time, taxation in most of those provinces increased dramatically. Members should know that over the past year there have been 175,000 more young people taking up the habit of cigarette smoking. This means $100 million in sales to the tobacco industry.

One of the problems is what young people understand about the ill-effects of smoking. When asked specifically if they thought smoking caused lung cancer or lung disease, more than one third of the young Canadians who were asked that question insisted it did not. More than half of the young Canadians insisted that using tobacco does not make people addicted to cigarettes.

Of the young people who become regular smokers, 70 per cent start smoking before the age of 15 and they are smoking daily before they reach the age of 17. If we can catch them at an early age and keep them away from cigarettes during that very early period, we have a good chance of keeping them off smoking for life.

What has happened in Ontario, specifically with regard to consumption among young people? I have just pointed out the dramatic figures associated with that increase in smoking among our young people. Bill 32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, increases the taxes by about 4.6 per cent, which is roughly equivalent to the rate of inflation.

If we go back to the October 1985 budget of the Treasurer and increase the rate of taxation to what it would have been had the ad valorem tax stayed in place, the Treasury would have approximately $100 million or $120 million more than it has currently.

I am suggesting to the Treasurer that he consider amending Bill 32 to increase the taxation of tobacco. I know it is not very common for a politician, particularly an opposition politician, to suggest a tobacco tax increase or any tax increase, but I have been known to do unusual things before.

17:10

At any rate, I suggest to the Treasurer that he raise the rate of taxation on tobacco by approximately 20 per cent. I am also suggesting to him that he put that 20 per cent aside to get the people who are involved in the tobacco industry -- the farmers in particular, but also the workers who work in processing tobacco -- the retraining, the resettlement and the other things that are necessary to get people away from that industry.

We have been reluctant in the past to make the proper moves to protect the health of our people in Ontario because of the lobby pressures of the people involved in the tobacco industry. However, if we address the problem head on, the health care problem and all the areas I have indicated before, and if we put this money aside to enable the tobacco industry to recover and get on another path, we will deal with the problem once and for all in terms of our interests in Ontario.

I am going to move in committee of a whole House, if the Treasurer will accept it as a friendly amendment -- I wish I could draw the Treasurer's attention; he seems somewhat preoccupied with the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I am going to ask the Treasurer to increase the tobacco tax by taking out the 2.83 cents per cigarette and increasing it to 3.4 cents a cigarette, a 20 per cent increase, and by increasing the tax on cut tobacco from 1.6 cents per gram to 1.9 cents, another 20 per cent increase.

Then I am going to ask him to include in the act as an addition that 20 per cent of the revenue received in respect of tobacco tax shall be set aside in a special fund, the proceeds of which shall be made available to tobacco farmers to assist them either to convert their farms to produce crops other than tobacco or to prepare for alternative employment.

I am also going to move that the minister receive, consider and decide upon applications for grants and loans to be made out of the moneys made available under subsection 2(1) of the act.

What I am suggesting the Treasurer do here is increase the taxation on tobacco. According to the Warner study at the University of Michigan, if we increase the price by 20 per cent, we will probably drop the number of young smokers back by 20 per cent to the level it was at in 1985, and he will have in his Treasury approximately $120 million to deal head on with the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry. It is about time we took an upfront stand in dealing with this very significant social problem we have, and I hope I can gain his approval to introduce this as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Gregory: I have a comment on my colleague's remarks, and in doing so I totally divorce myself from his suggestion. I find it rather startling that a colleague would choose to punish his colleagues on all sides of the House who smoke. I have a friendly amendment to express my thanks to nonsmokers for stopping breathing while I smoke.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a comment or two. The statistics the honourable member put before the House have been reported by the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. I found the statistics shocking and startling, as far as I was concerned. In reviewing them as carefully as I could, I feel the member and those people who agree with him have oversimplified their impact a bit. Perhaps I am a bit self-serving in coming to that conclusion, but I do.

I look at the tobacco tax statistics from across Canada. The member indicates that with our tax at 2.83 cents per cigarette, we are enticing young people into experimenting and then learning to smoke. He says the increase in utilization among young people is based on that, and yet he knows that in Alberta the tax is half that.

Mr. Mitchell: That does not make it right.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member interjects that that does not make it right, but I do not think the statistics indicate the utilization of cigarettes is geometrically associated in that way. I do not think the statistics bear it out.

In this instance, I felt I had to bring the member's attention to the fact that although our taxation has not increased substantially in the past two years and at somewhat less than the rise in the cost of living, as he pointed out, it is still reasonably high compared with most other jurisdictions. We are not the highest. Quebec has gone much higher. I think a moderate approach to this is an important concept. I liked the comments made by the member for Port Arthur, which I thought were quite useful.

I do not want to dismiss the member's concept other than to say, in the seven seconds remaining, that his two amendments are obviously out of order, however friendly their intention may be.

Mr. Sterling: The Treasurer should look at the statistics on the rates of taxation in other provinces across our country. We have gone from the third highest rate of taxation in 1985 to about the third lowest. The Treasurer talked about Alberta having a lower tax. Sure it has a lower tax. The other provinces with higher rates of taxation are Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The only ones lower are Alberta and Prince Edward Island; all the rest are higher than us.

I believe the statistics in terms of the young people taking up cigarettes are a direct result of the Treasurer laying back on the tobacco tax in his October 1985 budget. In every other province, they have increased their taxation to a large degree, and the consumption by young people in the rest of Canada has fallen by 13 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about Alberta? Its tax is half as big as ours.

Mr. Sterling: Its taxes stayed about the same, but its rate of consumption by young people has stayed about the same. In the rest of Canada, the rate of consumption has dropped by 13 per cent; it has increased by 20 per cent here. The Treasurer is being too soft on the tobacco tax, and he is encouraging young people to pick up the habit.

Mr. Mitchell: I was caught a little bit off guard because I had not planned on speaking on this bill, but in the light of the comments by my colleague the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), perhaps the House will indulge me. They say the worst people against smokers are those who are reformed smokers, but the points that are being raised by my colleague are valid.

I stand here today, fortunate in a way, because I went through quite a serious illness, a good part of which was created by the habit of smoking. I was a heavy smoker, smoking one and a half, two or two and a half packages a day. However, at that time, I pooh-poohed the effects of smoking on health, as did many others. I always found arguments against those who would say we should ban smoking or at least control it. I always had a rationale to answer all questions.

Having gone through the illness, I find the comments by my colleagues to be quite valid. When the price of cigarettes went up by a small percentage when I was a heavy smoker, I always grumbled but the money was always there to get the cigarettes.

17:20

I am a reformed smoker. Looking at what happens in our health care system and at the cost to our health care system of people in our cardiac units receiving treatment for abusing their bodies for years, what I am saying and what the member for Carleton-Grenville is saying is justified. Looking at the front row, a member who sits there, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), was a heavy smoker, as I was. I am sure she will echo the comment that we do not appreciate what smoking is doing to us until it has done it.

I share with the member for Carleton-Grenville the viewpoint that we should increase the tax to a greater extent than now and, as he says, that the money should appropriately be put into a special fund to assist farmers and other people involved in the tobacco industry to make a transition.

They claim there is no one worse than a reformed smoker, but I think it is through our problems and the effects smoking had on our health that we are able to speak with some degree of knowledge. The member for Carleton-Grenville has promoted a bill to control smoking in the work place that is going to obtain my support. Close attention should be paid to the concerns he has raised here.

Miss Stephenson: I would like to participate in the debate for one or two moments. The member for Port Arthur suggested very strongly that it was inappropriate for the Legislature to attempt moral suasion through taxation. I am not convinced of the validity of his argument since I know the member for Port Arthur would ensure that we would attempt to develop moral suasion through all kinds of legislation in this province. I have never been convinced that legislation can do that, but I believe there is a role in this area for a significant increase in taxation as an inhibition to the purchase by adolescents of readily available cigarettes.

I will not speak with the fervour of the previous speaker, the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), as a reformed smoker, but I am acutely aware that what is happening right now is that many young women -- and I mean very young women, adolescent girls -- are taking up the dreadful habit of cigarette smoking. The member for Port Arthur suggested that somehow morality had overtaken us in terms of accepting or not accepting cigarette smoking. He would do well to recall that it is morality based on pathology that has become increasingly clear and lethal to a very large proportion of the population.

If we were really sincere in our efforts to ensure that we reduce this kind of fatal activity on the part of young people -- as one who has been a smoker, I know how difficult it is to stop -- it would be far better if we never encouraged them to begin. That is the burden of the amendments introduced by the member for Carleton-Grenville. His approach is entirely in the direction of attempting to ensure that young people do not begin the dreadful exercise of smoking cigarettes. I support him completely in that effort. I do not believe it is beneath the dignity or below the level of morality or aside from the ethicality of legislators to --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Ethicality?

Miss Stephenson: Ethicality. Why does the minister not listen?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Try to enunciate.

Miss Stephenson: I was enunciating very clearly. He was not listening very clearly; that is all.

I believe it is possible to introduce legislation that is multiple-faceted or has several prongs or several arrows to its quiver. I believe strongly that we should consider seriously the amendment suggested by the member for Carleton-Grenville. I believe we would be doing a great service to the young people of this province if we could ensure that we were doing everything we could to prevent their participation in smoking.

While saying that, I recognize clearly the plight of the tobacco farmers. I also recognize the requirement of legislators in this province, where we have the largest number of tobacco farmers and probably a significant number of all those involved in the tobacco industry, to attempt to provide them with some stimulus and some support in moving from the area of career activity in which they are currently involved to another that is less likely to be totally limited in its future.

There is no doubt in my mind that there simply will not be a tobacco industry in this province in the not-too-distant future, and we have an obligation to attempt to ensure that date arrives sooner rather than later to the benefit of our population and to the benefit of those involved in the industry at present. There must be plans afoot, even in the mind of the current Minister of Agriculture and Food, because there were plans afoot in the minds of his predecessors, about the way in which that transition could be effected most readily and efficiently on behalf of the farmers.

The plight of the tobacco workers is a little more difficult, but it is not beyond the imagination of those involved in skills development in this province. I believe sincerely that the kinds of funds which the member for Carleton-Grenville is talking about could be applied very readily and specifically in that direction.

I know it is painful for Treasurers to consider directed funding or the extraction of any small portion from general revenue for a specific purpose, but in this instance, which is so important to the health of the people of our province and to the future of a very large number of workers in this province, particularly in the agricultural field, we should make this exception with not so heavy a heart as the Treasurer seems to be demonstrating on his face right at the moment.

It would be nice if the Treasurer could feel happy --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is very depressing.

Miss Stephenson: He always looks like this when I am talking about anything, so it does not disturb me especially, but I believe the Treasurer should listen quietly, carefully, sympathetically, understandingly and responsively to the kinds of suggestions that have been made.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will try to respond with all the alacrity, sensitivity, intelligence and friendliness that the last speaker was trying to force on me in her inimitable style.

On the issue that concerns me so much, that our taxing policy is leading more people than is natural to smoke, I want to point out that the most recent figures I have available indicate that the tax per pack of 25 -- before the passage of this bill -- is 85 cents in Ontario, 37 cents in Alberta, 77 cents in Manitoba, 60 cents in Nova Scotia, 58 cents in Prince Edward Island, 77 cents in the Northwest Territories and 80 cents in the Yukon. There undoubtedly have been changes since, but this is dated May 16, 1986.

Miss Stephenson: How does that compare to the available income?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am afraid I cannot enter into a defence of all the ramifications that may be interjected, but while our taxing levels here have not accelerated as fast as they have in the past, they are higher than in many other provincial jurisdictions. It is true that during the past two years they have gone up by only four per cent, not counting this increase. I consider this to be a moderate and useful approach, and I reject the idea that this taxation decision is causing the deaths of scores of teenagers. I reject that and I simply believe it is not true. I am not prepared to say for a moment that the use of tobacco is not injurious to health. I am not a doctor, and I read everything about it.

17:30

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Will the Treasurer point out where someone said that smoking was killing teenagers? Will he refer to somebody's statement? Is he referring to something I said?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If the import of the honourable member's speech was not that our low taxation level for tobacco was leading teenagers into smoking, and therefore into death, then I am not sure what his point was. Perhaps he had better clarify it.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we have had the debate. The member had made a point, and now I have asked the minister to wind up.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by many members. This is a difficult situation indeed. The fact that many of these growers are constituents of mine is not irrelevant; everybody is aware of that. I have a duty as a member for the area to speak on their behalf as well as to have taxation policy that is for the good of all concerned. I hope these are not mutually exclusive -- I do not believe they are, and my judgement is amended by the advice of my colleagues from time to time.

We believe revenues of about $600 million from the tobacco sales in the province are not out of the way. We feel this is a substantial source of revenue. I do wish, to go back to a point made by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), we could allocate all that money to agriculture. My own feeling is that with the support of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who has had a good many new programs in the few months we have had the responsibility of government, we will be essentially doubling that budget in the next reasonable period of time. Am I going too far? Perhaps not.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The Treasurer is doing fine.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am going to leave it at that, anyway, because between the two of us we think we are doing fairly well, and we have the support not only of our own people but obviously also of members on all sides of the House who want improved farm programs. We hope to bring those forward.

I would also say the tobacco farmers are showing all sorts of initiative on their own to come forward with alternatives that once again are supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. One of the honourable members was good enough to refer to the tomato paste experiment. I am glad to inform the House that their first year's pack has been excellent; it was six million pounds, or something like that, with half of it already sold, and of an excellent quality. We are informed that this has been done without interfering with the market already established, which was the fear of some people, and a very reasonable fear it was. We feel we are expanding the Canadian market. This was an initiative taken by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and by the minister himself.

Somebody referred to peanuts. Some of the peanuts are grown in my constituency. Anyone who is down in the Simcoe area might very well stop off at these places and buy some of the products freshly roasted out of the fields. They will find they are the best peanuts one can buy anywhere, and at a reasonable price.

Still, there are no crops that can replace tobacco and return to the tobacco farmers the kind of prosperity and economic buoyancy they have experienced during the past two or three decades. I wish there were, but that is not the case. These farmers have been subjected to a more rapid rate of change in their fortunes than has anyone else in the Ontario community. From the very richest segment of agriculture, they have been reduced to a situation where their future is substantially in doubt.

I do not agree with the member for York Mills, who said the tobacco business was in its last days. I believe the reduction in poundage grown, from a couple of hundred million pounds to about 130 million pounds this year, is the largest reduction we are going to experience. It may go down a bit more, but the honourable member, in spite of the fact that the members speaking were not in support of exports, will know the tobacco grown here is of high quality, with limited residues from sprays and chemicals, and is highly valued in the international market. At about $1.20 a pound, our price is reasonable for international trade.

I was travelling in China recently, and I was quite amazed at the huge amounts of tobacco used there. It seems as though everybody there smokes. I was also interested to see that their mortality rates are just about as good as ours; but that is another matter, because the last thing I would suggest is that tobacco does not have a health impact. It is obvious that it does.

Miss Stephenson: Their mortality rates from what?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: From living.

Miss Stephenson: What were you looking at? They are very different --

Mr. Breaugh: I think the Treasurer is losing. He should give up.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question period was completed quite some time ago. Just what is the point? You said you had a point of order.

Miss Stephenson: No, sir. I am simply asking for information.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: I would like to see the information that allows the Treasurer to make that statement, because it is incorrect.

Mr. Breaugh: We will have to go and investigate this.

Mr. Speaker: Order; minister.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Perhaps it is infant mortality I had in mind.

Miss Stephenson: Not even there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, it is; it is just as good as here. Anyway, I retract everything I said about the poor Chinese, who do smoke a lot. I wanted to sell them tobacco and they said, "Thank you very much, but we grow lots of it here." I think they grow something like 500 million pounds, if that is possible; huge crops.

Miss Stephenson: We sold them some, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, but that was only for the use of the central committee.

Miss Stephenson: It was 74 million pounds.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They smoke a lot.

Miss Stephenson: The central committee consists of 25 people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been completed except for the final wine-up -- windup by the minister. Wine-up; if the minister wants to wine up --

Miss Stephenson: Are the Speaker and the Treasurer smoking the same stuff?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will wind down and simply say that this increase in taxation is minimal or nominal; it is about at the rate of inflation. The tobacco marketing board has accepted it, although some of the farmers have complained about it; that is understandable. The revenue on a year's basis is once again less than $30 million, but it keeps track with the movement of the economy in general.

I appreciated the member for Durham West indicating that one of the sections of the bill requires the reporting of certain statistics, which we will make use of in enforcing this act. It is difficult to determine how much revenue we lose and how many cigarettes are sold in the province without the payment of appropriate tax, but one expert indicated it might be as high as $50 million.

There is quite a big business in contraband cigarettes. We are doing our very best to control it. I think we are doing it in a fair way, although certain segments of the community have availed themselves of the ability to sell tax-free cigarettes, and this from time to time is a bit of a problem as far as revenue is concerned.

We are trying to bring this under additional control. There was even some suggestion at one stage that we should have the wholesalers mark the packs with something indicating tax was paid in Ontario to assist us in that control. I do not think it is a major problem, but if we consider that we forgo as much as $50 million in revenue, it is something a Minister of Revenue thinks about.

I appreciate the limited support from the honourable members, and I hope the bill will receive second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

17:40

GOLD CLAUSES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 130, An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is the bill the House has been awaiting for many weeks. The repeal of the Gold Clauses Act will accomplish two things. First, the economic circumstances that sparked gold clauses legislation in the 1930s have altered, and paper money no longer requires the protection from gold that initiated gold clauses legislation. The United States and the Parliament of Canada have both repealed their gold clauses legislation.

Second, lawyers and financial advisers have brought to my attention that the Gold Clauses Act introduces an unnecessary complication into transactions where Ontario residents are borrowing money abroad in the currency of that country. The Gold Clauses Act provides that if the law of Ontario applies to the loan, the loan can be repaid, dollar for dollar, in the legal currency of the country where repayment of the loan can be made.

If an Ontario borrower borrows US dollars from a European bank, the parties usually contemplate that the loan will be repaid in US dollars. Normally, repayment would be made either in Ontario or at the lending bank in Europe. In either case, the Gold Clauses Act would allow the repayment in Canadian currency where the repayment was made in Ontario or in the currency of the European country in question where the loan was repaid in Europe. Neither of these repayments would provide US dollars to the European bank that lent US dollars to the Ontario borrower.

Because of the provision of the Gold Clauses Act, lawyers had to advise foreign lenders that as long as the law of Ontario applied to the contract, the lender could not be sure of getting his money back in the currency lent. The result was that some other law was chosen to govern the contract, but the complication was a nuisance to the party. It had ceased to be the protection it was intended to be in the 1930s, when the act was passed.

For these reasons, I have moved second reading of this bill to repeal the Gold Clauses Act. There is no advantage to Ontario in retaining the act, and there is some benefit to our citizens from repealing it.

Miss Stephenson: I congratulate the Treasurer on this jewel in the tiara of tax legislation he has introduced in this House in recent weeks. It is about time this happened, although the repeal at the federal government level was only two and a half years ago. I think it was late 1983 when the repeal was effected at the federal level, and it was 1977 when the US removed itself from the requirements of similar gold clauses legislation.

The advantages to individual Ontario citizens are those which the Treasurer has outlined, and repealing the statute obviously causes no disadvantage to Ontario or to the Treasury. Therefore, it is with considerable satisfaction that I stand to tell the Treasurer we will be supporting the passage of this bill, An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act.

Mr. Foulds: As I understand it, the original Gold Clauses Act allowed someone to pay in other than gold, even if he had promised to pay in gold. This was called the "weasel out of paying your debts in gold act." Now that our currency is so strong, it is not necessary to have this act any more. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Foulds: Therefore, following the federal lead, the province is repealing the act. If I understand that correctly, and that is the logical explanation, we support the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: This is the crowning glory, the biggest moment in the history of this Treasurer's life. I am sure he is happy that he has finally repealed this act. If it carries this afternoon, I am sure there will be dancing in the streets in Oshawa.

This is not an accord item, if I may phrase it that way. I do not know how it escaped our attention, but it did. Just to show the Treasurer how fiscally responsible we have become, we intend to support him all the way on this one.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the support for this initiative from the opposition parties. I believe it is going to do a great deal to strengthen the credit rating of the province.

Mr. Eves: Triple-A is back again.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Every little bit helps. I also appreciate the fact that the members opposite have done the research that has permitted them to contribute to this debate in the same effective way that I am contributing.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before I call the next order, there was some suggestion that the opposition parties would prefer not to proceed with Bill 131 at this time. No? Okay.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It has been indicated by some members that they would like the committee to look at the provisions of this bill, which deals with three or four changes to the Assessment Act. These have come to my attention as Minister of Revenue from a variety of sources.

The first one in particular would exempt from assessment the amusement rides that are located in a number of amusement parks around the province. The contention is that this is an imposition that is now seen to be unfair. All three parties have responded to the indications, specifically from Marineland in Niagara Falls, that the exemptions in that case would be in order. At least the bill moves in that direction, and these exemptions are part of the bill. I would appreciate knowing the views of the members, since we may talk about the principle of the bill per se but there are three or four specific things in it.

The second thing has to do with the exemption of certain specific institutions of a financial nature that are deemed to be nonprofit; for example, the Ontario Jockey Club, the Toronto Stock Exchange, caisses populaires and credit unions. The last thing we want to do is throw up any special kind of financial barrier that will impede in any way the proper progress of any of these organizations.

There were court findings in recent months that resulted in the exemption of some of these organizations from the payment of business tax. We felt, in the case of the Ontario Jockey Club in particular, that the House might like to have presented to it a bill that would correct what appears to be an anomaly. In the case of the Ontario Jockey Club, I believe the city of Etobicoke would stand to lose a substantial share of its revenue because of the court decision on these nonprofit organizations.

The justification for having a bill that maintains the taxation is that some of these institutions at least, not the Ontario Jockey Club particularly, compete on a business basis with other organizations that pay business tax. For that reason, the amendment is brought in to maintain the business tax rather than allow it to be negated by court action.

17:50

The third item comes from a decision before the courts of an appeal, originally entered by Nabisco Brands Ltd., involving the manufacture of its famous product, shredded wheat. It has large silos that are assessable, as are any other buildings. They are like silos on farms; my own are assessable as a part of the farm building. The Nabisco company went to court on the basis that the silos were an integral part of its manufacturing process and gained an exemption because of that.

The amendment is not some sort of a revenue grab; far from it. It is simply an attempt to see that assessments in the municipalities where these structures are located are not needlessly reduced in these special circumstances. There has been some strong feeling, and it has been put to me in a number of letters from farm organizations, that there is some thought in this bill that we would impose our assessment or allow municipalities to impose an assessment on structures such as grain storage bins and so on. Most of these are portable and, therefore, not taxable.

If some of the honourable members wanted a committee review of these provisions, we would be glad to have the officials there. I would be the last person to say it would be impossible that the provisions of the bill could not be improved. The officials of the Ministry of Revenue are quite satisfied that we can apply this in a fair and equitable way, simply maintaining the assessment of the municipalities and not using this as any kind of expansion that will put additional pressures on businesses, other than the taxes they have traditionally paid.

I am glad to introduce this. I assure members that comments from all sides will be extremely useful.

Mr. Gregory: I do not have many points on this bill, but I want to put a couple of remarks on record. I would much prefer to carry on with the thrust of the remarks of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) of the other day; they were very interesting. Perhaps I could even broaden the scope and address an amendment to the Assessment Act. I could be excused if we got on to that subject.

The member is lurking under there. He will send the Treasurer a note in a moment, but the Treasurer will not be able to read his writing; anyway, I never could.

It strikes me at first blush that the Treasurer has responded to pressures from certain local councillors who want to expand their tax base.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maintain it.

Mr. Gregory: It looks as if they want to expand it. When the Treasurer starts removing exemptions from certain properties and business enterprises, he is including things that traditionally have not been included. To me, that is an expansion of the tax base.

I find it difficult to understand. The main difficulty is when the Treasurer talks about removing an exemption of business tax from a nonprofit corporation and is removing the exemption from certain types of buildings. At the same time, he is not doing anything additional to benefit these people. I find it a little strange.

The Treasurer is eliminating these exemptions, but then he is turning around and putting exemptions on amusement rides. When I was Minister of Revenue -- I know the Treasurer is going to jump in, and before he says it --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought that was the one thing the member was supporting.

Mr. Gregory: Yes, I support that aspect of the bill. I am not making that point.

I find it rather contradictory that at the same time the Treasurer is putting exemptions on amusement rides, he is eliminating exemptions from certain buildings that are necessary in farming co-operatives and that sort of thing. He is taking a slap at the farmer but probably rewarding the city dweller.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is the last thing I intended.

Mr. Gregory: I agree. I saw a demonstration of that in the way the Treasurer was resisting the blandishments of the member for Carleton-Grenville. I saw how the Treasurer resisted his suggestion that we increase the tax on tobacco. I knew that would do nothing but hurt the farmer. However, I want to pay credit to the Treasurer, because he did resist that suggestion, which I do not think was a serious suggestion. I imagine that amendment, had it been passed, would have been a confidence motion at any rate; I rather suspect it would have been.

The member should not go away mad.

The farming co-operatives will be particularly hard hit. Co-operatives, as members know, are formed by a group of farmers who act as a central processing and storage facility, and they market the products on behalf of their members. These co-operatives have qualified for an exemption from the business tax in the past, as courts have determined that they are not businesses but rather a farming activity.

The proposed changes will nullify past court decisions and cause the co-operatives to be liable for the business tax. This, of course, is certainly going to be picked up by the farmer. One does not just add these costs and have them disappear. The farmers in the co-operative are going to pick this up, at a time when farming is particularly hard hit, I am told by many people who know something about agriculture -- we do not have a great many of these co-operatives in Mississauga East. As a matter of fact, not one farming co-operative in Mississauga East will suffer by this, not one; but some others will, and as a result of this, farmers will suffer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The head office of the co-operative is in Mississauga.

Mr. Gregory: Has that been tax-exempt? The Treasurer will find that the deputy minister will tell him it has not been exempt until now.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No; it is a business.

Mr. Gregory: It is a business, that is right; therefore, it has been taxable. What the Treasurer is talking about now is making all the others that have been exempt taxable. That is my reading of it. If I am not correct, I am sure the Treasurer is going to tell me in his remarks later on.

As I see it, on the one hand he is going to be assessing something that has not been assessed, and he is not going to be assessing something that traditionally has been assessed. I find that conflict a little hard to understand. Why does he take with one hand and give with the other?

They call that tinkering. The Treasurer said he did not tinker. I am going to start calling him Tinker Bell, because there have been several bills lately on which he has done a fine job of tinkering; so from now on it is Tinker Bell.

Miss Stephenson: No, Tinker Bob.

Mr. Gregory: Tinker Bob. I had better caucus this, but I do find that a little disturbing. Again, I am not a farmer, but I find that he is not being consistent. He tries to improve the act in one way, for amusement rides, and at the same time he is going to be doing something that, to my nonagricultural mind, is going to penalize the farmers, who are in a difficult state now.

I look forward to the Treasurer's response to this, which probably is not going to come today, but I will look forward to it.

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

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Unfortunately, I was out of the House. Can you let me know whether I am correct in understanding that we completed three revenue bills in the short space of this afternoon? Second, were any of these bills sent to committee of the whole House, or did they all go directly to third reading?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may I speak to the point of order, it was not bad today, but it was not very good on Thursday.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

27 octobre 1986