Journal des débats 1986-nov-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1987, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by the Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

Mr. Brandt: In October 1985, I was contacted by a constituent who was experiencing problems in having some drug receipts reimbursed. On her behalf, I contacted the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) by a letter dated October 24, 1985. I contacted the minister again out of necessity on December 12, 1985, and on February 17, March 26, May 8, August 7 and September 3, 1986. I finally received a response from the minister on October 21, 1986, three days less a full year from the first time I contacted him on behalf of my constituent.

Mr. Ashe: That is fast.

Mr. Brandt: That is real action.

In his letter the minister made no attempt to explain this incredible delay. He did not even apologize and, I might add, he did not help. He simply told me there was nothing he could do to be of assistance, although he did finish his letter by saying I should contact him again if I required further information.

To the minister, who is not in the House at the moment, I do require further information. I want to know why it took a year for him to respond to the original letter and I want a letter of apology to go to my constituent. I will send the minister a copy of the letter.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mrs. Grier: I want to draw to the attention of the House the urgent need for the Ministry of Labour to make a commitment to the principle that workers seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act have the right to be examined by a doctor of their choice and that independent occupational health clinics can play a vital role in this system and deserve support.

Two examples will illustrate the problem. Earlier this year, 81 workers at de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. arranged to have medical assessments done by doctors at the Ontario Workers Health Centre in Hamilton. The company had no control program in place, despite the extensive use of isocyanates, and the ministry had failed to enforce the act. Now de Havilland is refusing to pay the health centre for the assessments. Despite repeated requests by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the minister has refused to take action.

The other example is the Lakeshore occupational health clinic in my riding. In existence for two years, this community-based clinic is still waiting for funding from the Ministry of Health. Why? Because of jurisdictional difficulties between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health.

By its inaction on both these issues, the Ministry of Labour puts at risk the ability of such independent clinics to survive. Is that the government's intention? Surely it is time to recognize that Ontario workers need help in dealing with occupational health and safety problems. They need a government that is prepared to enforce the regulations; they need the right to know more about toxic substances; and they need the right to assessments and treatments by doctors of their choice.

SRI LANKA CLUB

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to inform the House of the ongoing work of the Sri Lanka Club of Peel. The recent history of Ontario has been profoundly affected by the influx of people from around the world who have come to our province in search of a better life. Responding admirably to the needs and interests of our Sri Lankan community, the Sri Lanka Club of Peel aims to foster the social and cultural development of its members and facilitate their integration into Canadian society.

All those affiliated with the club should be commended for their commitment to preserving their heritage and to the wellbeing of the people of Sri Lankan origin. They have much to be proud of, not only for their past accomplishments but also in the challenges they look forward to meeting in the future.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr. Andrewes: In a recent speech, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) indicated his concern over the rising cost of health care in the province. These concerns should not only manifest themselves in the big-ticket items but must also be extended to review all the programs the ministry and the minister administer.

Three years ago, 15-year-old Neil had a serious accident which left him with brain damage. As part of his behavioural modification, Neil requires an arm restraint. One restraint was signed by the hospital staff, quickly challenged by Neil and soon discarded. This did not prevent his mother, a single parent with another son to support, from receiving a bill for $439 for the restraint, 75 per cent of which was paid by the Ontario government assistive devices program.

The restraint was challenged within half an hour. It is now a relic of Neil's long struggle to cope with his handicap, but his mother and the taxpayers of the province wonder why this obsolescence has cost them $439.

ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY

Mr. Dean: Last Friday the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Ageing held a conference on elder abuse. It was attended by more than 250 people from the social work and health care professions. This month the city of Toronto will also be running a public awareness campaign on elder abuse through posters placed in bus shelters and subways. These initiatives deserve notice and commendation.

Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that this government has done nothing to help the potentially 36,000 seniors in our province who may be abused. The previous government recognized this issue and took a major step towards seeking a solution in 1984, when the standing committee on social development was asked to take a close look at elder abuse. This led to the February 1986 report by the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, which made some 13 recommendations. Since then, this government has ignored the report and taken absolutely no action to deal with this tragic problem.

It is time for this government to follow the example being set by the city of Toronto and other municipalities and to take action on elder abuse. Like child abuse and abuse of women, the issue cannot be ignored. I urge the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne), who unfortunately is not here, and his colleagues to take a look at the report from the senior citizens' advisory council and to take action on its recommendations.

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE LEGISLATION

Mr. Warner: I rise because I am very upset about this government's approach to what I thought was a nonpartisan effort to present to the House Bill 3, the Seniors' Independence Act, which was subsequently given second reading. That was the first opportunity this province has ever had to place before the people a comprehensive plan, whose aim is to place an emphasis on home care and to take away the traditional approach of institutionalizing seniors. Our rate of institutionalization is approximately double that of most western European countries.

The bill passed second reading and was sent to committee, but apparently the government members on the committee are still not prepared to treat the bill seriously. I am very disturbed and upset by that. It seems to me, as a Legislature, we have an opportunity to do something better for seniors than we have ever done in the history of this province. Yet some people are prepared to play petty politics with the bill, and I for one am not happy.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Mr. Callahan: I am very pleased to rise and recognize the fact that this is Crime Prevention Week, most specifically with reference to my own constituency. There are three individuals who will be honoured this evening as a result of their efforts in this very worthy cause. I want to pay tribute to Robert Thomas, the individual who will be honoured this evening for his involvement in assisting victims, particularly victims of abuse, and in helping them through the trauma of testifying.

One of Peel's finest, Superintendent Barry King, will be honoured as well for his participation in a program to reduce impaired driving, particularly with reference to fatalities that arise out of it. I am very pleased to say that, as a result of this program, there has been a drop in fatal-accident statistics in the region of Peel. Len Jones, who is connected with CKMW in our riding, will also be honoured for his assistance on a whole host of crime prevention programs and for the advice given through the radio station in many languages that recognizes the diversity of the cultural groups living in our riding.

I want to put their names forward as participants and leaders in Crime Prevention Week.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Stevenson: I want to comment briefly on the answer the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) gave last week to one of his own members. The question related to the support through stabilization to beef and grain farmers, and farmers separating their operations to try to get both supports. The minister stated that the federal government did not support that splitting, but he did not state the provincial government's position. One would think in response to one of his own members, he would come clean to the farmers of Ontario.

13:44

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a statement which would normally be made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who cannot be present today and who has asked me to present it to the House. The statement is in response to the public concerns raised by a report entitled Crimes Against the Elderly in Institutional Care. The report was prepared by Toronto criminologist Birthe Jorgensen and contains allegations of criminal behaviour directed against elderly residents in Ontario nursing homes.

On Friday, the Minister of Health asked his cabinet colleagues to review the report with a view to determining whether an Ontario Provincial Police investigation was warranted. That review was begun immediately, and I am now able to tell the House an OPP investigation will be launched. A detective inspector of the OPP met with crown law officers and an official of the Ministry of Health earlier today to lay some of the groundwork for the investigation.

Because of the nature of the allegations, it is not possible at this point to say how long the investigation will take or how wide-ranging it will be, but I assure the members that every necessary investigative step will be taken to ensure that all the details are brought out and that all necessary steps are taken.

At the appropriate time, the Solicitor General will ensure that the results of this investigation are made known to the members of the House.

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As part of our continuing efforts to improve the prebudget discussion and consultation process, I am pleased to table today a paper, Economic and Fiscal Review: Province of Ontario, developed by staff of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

It has been prepared to assist the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, chaired by the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), in its discussions relating to the 1987 budget. In the coming weeks, I hope the members of the Legislature and the general public will take the opportunity to provide the committee with their views on the budgeting priorities for the province.

The paper contains a forecast of Ontario's economic performance for 1987 and a review of economic prospects over the medium term from 1988 to 1990.

Ontario's overall economic outlook continues to be highly favourable. Treasury economists are forecasting real growth of 4.1 per cent in 1986 and 3.6 per cent in 1987. Growth is expected to average 3.1 per cent annually over the 1988-1990 period. Job creation is forecast to continue at a strong pace, with 114,000 new jobs in 1987 and an average of more than 100,000 further jobs each year over the next three years.

I should emphasize for the members and others who study the document that the staff projections of economic performance are not targets but forecasts derived from reasonable assumptions about our economic environment. Recognizing the dependence of Ontario's economy on external factors, the paper also contains alternative forecasts based on different assumptions about economic developments in the United States.

The review also provides the members with a detailed outline of Ontario's revenue and expenditure structure and recent fiscal performance. It includes sections on fiscal capacity and tax effort as well as on debt and debt financing. Two other sections are devoted to federal-provincial funding programs and provincial-local transfers.

The information contained in Economic and Fiscal Review will assist the members of this House and the general public in better understanding the context in which budget decisions are made. I am looking forward to advice from the standing committee on all these matters.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have an additional statement on the publication of Ontario Finances. I wish to draw the members' attention to the second-quarter Ontario Finances report, which was released earlier today. Revenues for 1986-87 are forecast to increase by $405 million over the budget estimates. This forecast is based largely on recent indications from the federal government that personal income tax revenues collected on behalf of Ontario for this year and prior years will be greater than originally estimated.

Part of the increased revenue has been allotted for such priority funding as agricultural support programs, health care programs and capital for economic development projects such as the General Motors-Suzuki assembly plant in lngersoll, as well as infrastructure for the Toyota assembly plant in Cambridge.

A major portion of the increased revenues has permitted a reduction in the net cash requirements of $107 million this fiscal year to $1,437,000,000. As a consequence of this action, I now expect Ontario's borrowings this year from the Canada pension plan to be reduced by $200 million from the original budget estimates to a level of some $400 million, its lowest level in 18 years.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a final statement. I would like to announce to the House the major transfer payments for 1987-88.

In the 1985 budget, I announced the government's intention to provide greater certainty in financial planning for our municipalities, hospitals, colleges, universities and school boards. I indicated we would announce transfer payment decisions to the major recipients early in their budgetary cycle so that they could plan effectively for the provision of adequate and efficient services. At that time, I also announced that these transfer recipients would receive a further four per cent increase in their basic transfer payments for 1987-88.

I am pleased to say today that the government is honouring these commitments. In fact, many transfer payments will increase at a higher rate to reflect population growth, work load and new priorities.

The total allocation for the operation of hospitals for 1987-88 will be increased by 7.4 per cent. Details of this increase in funding will be announced later this week by my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston).

Total funding for the operation of universities will increase by 7.3 per cent in 1987-88. The $50-million excellence fund will be incorporated into our ongoing operating support to the university community, which will increase base funding by 11.5 per cent.

The 1987-88 operating grants for colleges of applied arts and technology will grow by a total of 4.3 per cent. These grants will include $60 million for the negotiated settlement for faculty work load. The colleges excellence fund will also be incorporated into our ongoing operating support to the colleges, which will increase base funding by 6.1 per cent in 1987-88. This funding represents an average annual increase of 10.9 per cent over the 1985-86 funding level. The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) will announce the details of these increases today.

Provincial operating support to school boards will increase by six per cent in 1987-88. In addition, capital transfers will be significantly enriched to accommodate major pressures being experienced in some of our fastest-growing urban areas. Adequate resources will also be provided to complete the phase-in of the extension of funding to the separate secondary school system. The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) will provide further details of the school board allocation this very day.

Transfer payments to municipalities will increase by five per cent in 1987-88. In addition, the $30-million funding for local roads from the municipal improvement fund will be continued next year. My colleagues will be announcing the details of the specific municipal grant programs over the next few days.

I am particularly pleased to announce that the payment in respect of enrolment or resident place in certain public institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, universities and public hospitals, will be enriched by $25, from $50 to $75. This increase will provide an additional $9.2 million in 1987-88 to address a long-standing concern expressed by local government representatives.

These major transfer announcements will permit the government to continue to strengthen its partnership with local governments and with those who deliver major services on behalf of the province. This information will allow these organizations to accelerate their budget process.

In my capacity as Chairman of Management Board, I have asked my colleagues to ensure that individual recipient organizations are notified of their allocations as soon as possible following this announcement. I have also asked my colleagues to ensure that transfer payments are made in a timely manner.

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: After that glowing introduction by the Treasurer --

Mr. Foulds: It is not a hard act to follow.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is one I always enjoy following.

Since assuming office, our government has pursued its commitment to enhance post-secondary education in Ontario.

We have on numerous occasions during the past year reiterated our commitment to revitalize our institutions. The steps we have taken include significantly increasing the level of capital support, extending the university faculty renewal program to nine years and improving the Ontario student assistance program.

I have considered it my personal responsibility to visit as many college and university campuses as possible to elicit the views of administrators, faculty, students and support staff to determine the most appropriate means of following through on our commitment.

L'opinion des personnes consultées a servi, dans une large mesure, à préciser la méthode adoptée par le présent gouvernement pour aider les établissements d'enseignement à relever le défi que pose, en ce 20e siècle, l'enseignement postsecondaire.

Nous avons demandé de nombreux avis sur la façon de déterminer le niveau et le type des subventions de fonctionnement dont les collèges et les universités bénéficieront en 1987 et 1988.

I am absolutely delighted to announce that the government will provide $1,442,500,000 in university operating grants to Ontario's universities and related institutions in 1987-88. This amount represents an increase of $148.7 million, or 11.5 per cent, over the 1986-87 base funding level.

The 1986-87 base funding of $1,293,000,000 was supplemented by one-time special funding of $50 million. When this special fund is taken into consideration and the balance is compared to the 1987-88 allocation, the resultant year-over-year increase is 7.3 per cent.

I would like to take this brief opportunity to provide the House with a brief summary of how the $148.7 million in new base funding support will be allocated: first, $51.7 million in keeping with the commitment regarding 1987-88 operating grants announced in October 1985; second, $37 million to continue, as part of basic allocations, the teaching equipment and library acquisition fund and the faculty renewal fund, both of which were initiated in 1986-87; and, finally, $60.0 million in special allocations to recognize enrolment growth and promote accessibility, to encourage increased research activity, to address special needs in the north and to facilitate program adjustments.

These particular allocations have been determined in direct response to specific needs identified by the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the institutions themselves. Today I will be asking the council to advise on the distribution of these funds. I hope to be able to advise individual institutions of their allocations early in the next year.

For the colleges of applied arts and technology, there will be a 17.7 per cent increase between 1985-86 and this year's operating allocations of $598 million.

In 1987-88, there will be a further 4.3 per cent increase on this significantly enlarged base. That translates into an average increase of 10.9 per cent for each of those two years.

In announcing the next year's operating grant increases, I would also like to take this opportunity to indicate that formula tuition fees in Ontario's universities and colleges will be held to an increase of approximately four per cent in 1987-88. This increase is consistent with the inflation factor reflected in the basic operating grant increase and will likewise be part of adjustments to the 1987-88 Ontario student assistance program.

I intend to announce details of the Ontario student assistance program and of the 1987-88 university and college capital support programs in the near future.

This government is committed to developing the full potential of our post-secondary institutions. I am confident that with the funding levels announced today we have turned the corner and are now well on our way towards creating a financial environment that will allow our institutions to contribute in a very significant way to the province's economic and social growth.

If we had a moment of silence in this House and listened very carefully, we could hear the cheers coming not only from our neighbours across the street, the University of Toronto, but also from every single institution in this province.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Conway: It gives me great pleasure at this time to announce the increases in provincial grants to Ontario school boards.

The figures I am about to share are evidence of the priority this government places On education.

After more than a decade of underfunding, this government has crossed a barrier and begun the process of rebuilding, but this reconstruction cannot be completed overnight. It must evolve surely and steadily, with each increase representing a positive step towards growth and renewal.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce an increase in provincial operating grants to school boards of 5.5 per cent, and six per cent if one adds the additional enrichments in the areas of educational technology, primary and junior science, and affirmative action initiatives.

Operating grants to the school boards will total $3,401,900,000, an increase of $177.7 million over the 1986 figure of $3,224,200,000 billion. An additional $13.5 million in grants will enrich educational technology, primary and junior science, and affirmative action initiatives.

In addition, the government has allocated $163.5 million in 1987 for the continued extension of the separate school system, $56.2 million more than last year. The government has also allocated $147.2 million for capital projects next year, $39.6 million more than in 1986 or an increase of 37 per cent.

Funding has been earmarked in three specific areas: the provision of new facilities in high-growth regions; much-needed renovations and additions to existing schools, and the provision of accommodation related to the extension of the separate school system. About $30 million of the increase will be used for new school construction, the remainder for renovations and additions to existing structures.

Since this government took office in June 1985, the level of support for capital projects has more than doubled. The increases in both capital and operating grants are clear proof of the firm commitment of this government to excellence in Ontario education. I believe Ontario can point with pride to its elementary and secondary school system.

With the announcement of today's increases, the government is showing its continued support of this system. The additional funding will help ensure that a growing and thriving system becomes even better as we work to provide the best possible education for all our children.

Mr. Grossman: It is interesting to note today that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has to fess up almost exactly to the amount of understated or hidden revenue that the Progressive Conservative Party indicated he was hiding in his budget last May. At that time, we indicated that a minimum of $300 million was, shall we say, forgotten about. Today the Treasurer announces $405 million that he had forgotten about; so he has to fess up to that amount by today's date. With an election coming, it is now interesting to note that he fesses up to $400 million for six months. Our party has been saying for some weeks now that the Treasurer, given the economic growth, is expecting $800 million; so we are right on track again. The Treasurer has a further $400 million coming in for the balance of this year.

The other interesting thing to note is that the Treasurer continues to try to understate economic growth in Ontario. He ignores the fact that by his own submissions on the growth of gross provincial product, currently in the second quarter in Ontario it is growing at a rate of 5.6 per cent -- the government members who have just applauded should wait a minute and listen to what the Treasurer says -- while he says it is only 4.1. If it is growing at 5.6 per cent at present and the Treasurer expects it to be 4.1, he must be expecting a great economic slowdown in the next six months in order to justify his 4.1 per cent figure.

I want to say a couple of words about the disappointing decision the Treasurer has made with regard to the allocation of the hidden bonanza that we identified for him some time ago. I remind him that his announcement for hospitals this coming year -- I say this in view of the fact that I presume the Minister of Health this time was not able to get the help of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in fighting his fight -- contains the lowest increase in health care since 1979.

Let us look at university funding. First, the minister obviously succeeded not in getting more money but at least in getting the Treasurer to accept the proposal put forward by both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party that the excellence fund be folded into the operating grants. However, let us fess up to it. The reality is that the total funding for universities will increase by 7.3 per cent, hardly an increase at all, compared with the 1984 increase of 6.5 per cent, for example. With this incredible, admitted $400-million bonanza coming in, what did the Treasurer have for colleges and universities but 6.1 per cent, which is almost 1.5 per cent lower than the amount given by the previous government two years ago in a situation a lot less critical for the colleges?

We should also have a look at the technology fund. I was intrigued to see in the expenditure fess-up this afternoon that the technology fund, which was announced at $1 billion for 10 years -- being $100 million a year with $50 million new money -- now is off by $7 million. Therefore, the $1-billion technology fund for the current year is now $50 million new money less $7 million, which makes it $43 million. We know where $17.5 million went, do we not? It went to Mr. Schwartz.

That means the $1-billion technology fund -- the shining light, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) calls it, into world-class fill-in-the-blank -- now turns out to be not $1 billion, not $100 million, not even the $50 million that we modestly expected might be available in new money this year, but after David and Abe, net new technology money this year is $25 million, with the government getting $2.6 billion in new revenues. That is a sad commentary on the Premier's new technological world.

Mr. Foulds: What we have been treated to today is a series of complacent and stand-pat statements. These are not stand-pat times, and there is no need for complacency.

The good news is that the Treasury and the government are making more money. The bad news is that the Treasurer is not doing anything creative or imaginative about it.

The Treasurer indicates that the personal income tax revenues are up. This means, for those who are working, that their incomes are up; but so are their taxes, and the individual continues to bear more than his or her fair share of the taxation burden in Ontario. It is scandalous that Ontario continues to collect $112 million in income tax from people living below the poverty line in this province.

The individual personal income tax in relation to the corporate income tax, according to the Treasury's own figures, is a ratio of 72 to 28. That is up from where it was 20 years ago, when the individual paid 64.5 per cent and corporate income tax revenues paid 35.5 per cent.

Nowhere in the Treasurer's statement does he indicate that the increased revenues of the province should go to economic development in northern Ontario, where this very day the Premier is having a conference. We do not need conferences; we need economic development.

In his Economic and Fiscal Review, the Treasurer indicates, and takes pride in saying, that the government is creating 114,000 new jobs in 1987. When we compare that to the 325,000 people who are currently unemployed. 125,000 of whom are young people, it does not even make a dent.

This Treasurer had an opportunity to start building and developing a mature and new economy. That did not happen.

The transfer payments are up by 7.4 per cent to hospitals, 7.3 per cent to universities and a piddling 0.5 per cent to municipalities. Members have to understand that the inflation rate in Toronto today is five per cent so the real increase is about 2.5 per cent to three per cent at the very highest, and the Treasurer knows that. There is a certain sleight of hand that ill behooves the Treasurer in all of this.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) said that if we had a moment of silence we would hear cheers from the institutions of this province. I want to ask him and the Treasurer, will we hear cheers from the people? Will we hear cheers from the unemployed in northern Ontario? Will we hear cheers from those living below the poverty line who are paying income taxes? Will the parents looking for day care cheer? Will municipal taxpayers cheer? I say the answer is no.

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the statements of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Education and their announcements of grants, seconding the remarks of the Treasurer.

First of all, I wish to point out that both of those statements occurred at the end of a period in which the best calculation of what happened in educational finance for all sectors between the early 1970s and the early 1980s indicated that the provincial commitment to education had dropped massively and was substantially below the national average of funding in all sectors, whether one talks about elementary education, secondary education, vocational education or post-secondary higher education. As late as 1984-85, for example, in the elementary and secondary panels, we were below the national average by about $423 per student; in the post-secondary sector, it was something in the order of $1,300 per student.

What has happened, if one looks at it very carefully, is that while there was a funding level in 1978 that one could compare with 1983 or 1984 and reach a deficit or shortfall of about $250 million in the province, those figures had not been substantially made up as of a year ago. What we see today with the post-secondary, university grants is a slight turning of the corner, as the minister said. However, when he said we are well on our way, I will be very interested to see the comparisons of provincial governments in the course of the next year to see whether we have reached any higher than seven out of 10 provinces in the average per capita allotment to post-secondary education.

14:15

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my question is to the acting Chairman of Management Board and government House leader. I wonder whether he would reflect back on his leader's handwringing last week over Bill 105, the pay equity legislation. Will the House leader agree with me that the Premier could solve all these procedural problems if he were to lead his party in introducing the amendments introduced by the opposition party, thus getting the pay equity bill through and eliminating the procedural problems? Why will the government not do that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable members know the announced policy of the government based on Bill 105 and on the companion bill, which the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has indicated will be introduced to the House before the end of this calendar year. Bill 105, which covers pay equity only in the public service, is before the standing committee on administration of justice now, and we intend to supplement that with additional legislation.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that both opposition parties have introduced amendments that substantially expand the ambit of Bill 105 to the extent that the chairman of the committee ruled them out of order. The chairman's ruling has been reversed. It is a matter that will concern the House, or at least I hope it will concern the House, when the bill returns here as it must some time in the next few days or weeks.

Our policy is well known. We have the responsibility to govern. The opposition parties may deal with the bills as they see fit. My own feeling is that by reversing the ruling of the chairman on such an obvious section that was out of order, if there is any dislocation associated with this important legislation, the authors of it are the spokesmen for the opposition parties and not the government.

Mr. Grossman: There is one thing the government cannot avoid responsibility for; that is, acknowledging that if it were willing to introduce the amendments or support the amendments, the procedural problem would not be in place even if it is as he describes. Therefore, the government is relying upon its interpretation of procedure to thwart pay equity in the broader public sector.

My question for the government House leader is a very simple one. As Treasurer and as acting Chairman of Management Board, will the Treasurer agree with me that all of Bill 105 could be applied in the narrow public sector without any legislation whatsoever but through the normal route that the government follows in making pay adjustments annually? It does not need Bill 105 to do the narrow thing the government and the Attorney General want to accomplish; it can do it internally in the government. Therefore, if the government is committed to proceeding, why does it not simply implement Bill 105, as it has full power to do internally in the government, and do it today and not wait another day?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member must be aware, as we all are, that in the election campaign 15 months ago, this was a matter of some substantial concern. We in the Liberal Party and the supporters of the New Democratic Party supported the concept of pay equity; it was not precisely the same, but the thrusts were identical. It is something we have undertaken to bring before the Legislature by a government bill, which we are now doing.

Presumably, it would be possible for the government to raise anybody's pay in the public service in the way the member has described, but we feel it is a matter of important public policy. It is something that must concern all members of the Legislature and, through them, all the taxpayers in Ontario. We think this is the proper and democratic way to proceed in an innovation that we think is important and, in fact, liberal.

14:20

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer will forgive me for suggesting candidly that the 29,000 women in the public sector who would be covered by his legislation only want to be sure they get equal pay and are not tied up with parliamentary procedure. They do not care whether it comes in this way or in the way in which they have traditionally been given wage increases; they only want their wages increased.

If the Treasurer decides to withdraw Bill 105 as a result of the temper tantrum his leader likes to throw when he does not get his way here, is he so committed to pay equity in the narrow public service that he is prepared to give a commitment this afternoon to the House to implement pay equity in the civil service prior to Christmas, either through legislation or directly by regulation, as he has the power to do, no matter what happens in the meantime?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: It can be done for women in the public service, or is he going to back off and hide under a rock?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Leader of the Opposition's commitment to pay equity was not enough for him to bring it forward in the election campaign but only to advise his predecessor in a deathbed repentance to put it in that famous speech from the throne that was stillborn. His own commitment to it is in many respects questionable, but ours is not. Our commitment is that it be done by legislation.

The funding for Bill 105 is in the budget at present, and we suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else who is listening that if they choose to hold up the bill, which is an implementation of government policy, then it is an extremely regrettable decision made by the opposition parties and not by the government. We want to proceed with pay equity in the public sector and introduce legislation extending it to the private sector. That is our plan. We invite their support.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: Pay equity to the government members is like beer and wine: They want to talk about it, but they do not want it to happen. If they wanted it to happen, they would go ahead and do it.

Mr. Brandt: Talk is cheap. We want some action.

Mr. Grossman: We will talk about his leader's commitment during the election campaign to stopping Darlington too.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a new question?

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, who embarrassingly said he was "absolutely delighted" -- and I use his words; he is obviously easily satisfied -- at the announcement today, which will mean about $2 million in new dollars on average to the universities around this province next year, net over inflation. Does the minister take the position that an increase of $148 million is enough for the universities in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Talking about embarrassing moments, I recall the embarrassing moment the Leader of the Opposition experienced a few weeks ago at the University of Toronto, when he finally had to acknowledge to all gathered there that 10 years of Progressive Conservative Party rule in this province had left our university institutions in a sorry state.

A year ago, I announced a $50-million university excellence fund, which I described as a first step. We have now turned the corner with this second major initiative. Is more needed? In short, the answer to my friend the Leader of the Opposition is, of course.

Mr. Grossman: Would the minister like to be very succinct this afternoon and not answer the question I did not ask with regard to whether more is needed? Candidly, we all acknowledge that there will always be more needs and requests in the system, whether we are talking about hospitals, colleges, universities, health care or municipalities. We all understand that and respect it. We know it would be nice to have more.

The government's revenues are up by 9.6 per cent. The government has in hand $2.6 billion worth of additional revenue that it has fessed up to. For 15 universities, which are as beleaguered as the minister describes them, he has been given $148 million, or $2 million above inflation per university. Does the minister say specifically that the $148 million he has been given is enough for the university system? It either is or it is not. In our view it is not. What does he think'?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There is the Leader of the Opposition's classic either/or question. Frankly, no such step was taken when he was Treasurer. No such step was taken by him when he was the Minister of Colleges and Universities. That $2 million per institution will make a dramatic impact. In fact, the incremental funding goes very much towards the $170 million he talked about and can spend freely as Leader of the Opposition.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants an answer to his question, he should ask the students, the faculty and the university presidents whether this is not an initiative that will turn the corner and keep us on a course towards revitalizing our institutions. I think there he will get the answer yes.

Mr. Grossman: They will not even find the corner with this amount of money, let alone turn the corner. Let me remind the minister that he is talking about a total of $1.4 billion going into the system, and all his Treasurer has been able to find for him is $2 million per university to add to $1.4 billion. With respect, it is difficult to put out the proposition that $2 million per university, where it is built on $1.4 billion, allows them to get even a glimpse of the kind of future they were begging the minister to give them at that rally last week. Inflation will be 4.1 per cent next year. He has been given 7.3 per cent, an increase of three per cent above the rate of inflation. How much does that net out to when we deduct from that the $24.8-million Board of Industrial Leadership and Development carrythrough that has been built into his budget and the $17.6 million for the current year that is the BILD carrythrough in his budget? Can he give us the net figures for transfer increases when he takes out the BILD commitments from the previous government, which he is not adding to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Does he have that exact figure?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have never seen such shameless use of statistics in all my life in this House. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well the BILD allocations are in respect of capital, and today we are talking about operating grants.

Mr. Grossman: He has lumped it all in.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We have not lumped it all in, and he knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Grossman: Of course he has. He lumped it all in.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Then he takes a global allocation of $1.4 billion for all the institutions and compares it with what each institution will get individually. The facts speak for themselves. I announced today a $148.7-million increment in allocations for operating the institutions. This is the best news they have heard in many years.

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding his draft amendments to the Nursing Homes Act. In case he does not have them, I will send him a copy. He has not yet had the guts to release those draft amendments to the public.

Can he confirm that his draft amendments, which are supposed to reform the nursing home system in Ontario, do not even refer to increased staffing levels in Ontario's nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, on which I have been consulting very widely, are designed to deal with problems concerning which regulations have been drafted in the past and found to be wanting, particularly with respect to ownership and concentration of ownership, but also dealing with other matters that are necessary to upgrade the regulations and the act itself.

Within my mandate there are other areas or other ways to deal with questions of staffing, but I do not believe the particular sections specifically refer at any juncture to staffing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not know how the minister can talk about improving the quality of life in Ontario's nursing homes if he does not change the silly staffing provisions that currently exist in Ontario's nursing home system.

Can he also confirm that in these draft amendments to the Nursing Homes Act there is no bill of rights for the residents of Ontario's nursing homes and there is no independent advocacy procedure'?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can confirm that the draft amendments are just that. In fact, we have had a number of discussions about what should be included in those amendments. As recently as last Friday afternoon, we did speak with a number of advocates about changes to the amendments that we have circulated to those groups, including members of a number of consumer groups and the Ontario Nursing Home Association. We did discuss questions of the bill of rights and other sorts of opportunities, but those are not reflected in this draft.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Can the minister further confirm that with regard to financial accountability, the only statement in his proposed amendments is that the owners will have to provide a statement of profit and loss for that fiscal year, which will be a completely meaningless provision of information to relatives, residents and members of this Legislature?

Finally, when is he going to introduce these amendments so that we can put proper amendments to his amendments forward, to improve this bunch of garbage that he is proposing to the residents of Ontario's nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that this is not garbage. In fact, major steps are being taken to deal with problems that have been made evident over the past several months as we have had to deal with this system. We have indicated quite clearly there are problems with respect to ownership and concentration of ownership which we wish to be able to deal with under these amendments. There are other areas in which we wish to take steps forward. The provision for annual filing of information on financial matters is one of those items that I think will be of help to us.

There are a number of ways in which we hope to improve the quality of life in nursing homes. These amendments will be of some assistance. The reorganization within our ministry will be another way of helping to improve those conditions. I can tell the people of Ontario that the manner in which we are providing extra funds through contracting for service with our nursing home operators will indeed increase the quality of care in those facilities.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. It floats from the hunger conference held this past weekend. I should start by thanking him for the lunch that was provided by the government of Ontario. I only wish that he fed the people of the province as well as he fed us at the Park Plaza.

On Sunday, it was suggested by a number of delegates that each delegate should leave that place and that discussion and talk to his government representative about specific plans to eliminate hunger and the need for food banks over the next 18 months. What are the minister's specific plans?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is well aware of the fact and has supported the initiative of the government to do a complete review of the social assistance programs in Ontario. It is our understanding that the report of that review will be available this coming spring. That is one fact.

Second, we did make significant increases in our rate structure in January. As part of our next year's package, we began in September of this year by giving additional dollars for shelter subsidies so more money would be available for food. In the next three or four days, I will be announcing the rate increases for the coming year.

I also remind the member that the Rev. Drainville, the conference chairman, indicated very clearly that this was the first step and that provincial governments, among others, would be doing a series of things, and those are some of them.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister will know that many who go hungry and who go to food banks these days are children or the single parents of children on assistance. Too often these children become wards of the state through the frustration that falls upon the parents. Foster parents in Ontario who are given responsibility for those children can receive up to $698 a month more to feed and clothe the three teen-aged children of a family benefits mother than that mother would have for herself and all those children, including their shelter.

Why does the ministry think that foster parents might need as much as $570 or more a month to raise each child properly, while it considers that a family benefits mother needs only $100 a month? Is not one way of helping to stamp out hunger to recognize the real costs of family benefits mothers and perhaps to match in the rate increases what the government gives to middleclass parents to look after these kids?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will remember that in our 1986 rate increases were three or four very distinct increases directed specifically at children. That will be continued in the next one.

I point out to the member, however, that assistance to foster parents is a very specific and a very different program from the general social assistance program, and I do not believe it is appropriate to match the two. There is no doubt that single parents raising children need more money. There is no question about that. Additional money has been given and additional money will be given. This is a longer-term program, and we will continue to deal with the problem.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I suggest somewhat ironically that perhaps we should make all single recipients foster parents so they can meet their budget needs.

Does the minister ally himself with the government's official representative at that conference, the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan)? Although he could not be there for the day of solutions, he wanted to get his solution for replacing the food banks on record with the suggestion that there be co-op retail outlets only for the use of social assistance recipients, who would then be able to purchase excess produce from the various marketing boards around the province.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have not had an opportunity to discuss the proposal of the member for Brampton with him. I would point out to him, however, that there are some low-income parent co-ops in this province. There is one in my neighbouring community of Cambridge, which is assisted by this ministry. It is not the only answer by any means, but if a group of low-income parents wants to start a self-help project, we have indicated we will help with that, but it is not a replacement.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In the proceedings of the standing committee on public accounts last week, as well as in the standing committee on general government dealing with his estimates, it was stated that $3.5 million was paid out in severance to the 71 employees terminated by Lavalin, subsequent to Lavalin's purchase of the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

14:40

Since it was Lavalin that decided to terminate these employees, Lavalin should have paid the $3.5 million, not the taxpayers of this province. Can the minister tell this House why the taxpayers of Ontario, through their provincial government, funded this payout, and not Lavalin?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As the member far Mississauga East well knows, the windup of any operation is taken from the incoming revenue, the accounts receivable from that operation. That is certainly the case in the payout of severance pay to the 71 former employees of UTDC.

Mr. Gregory: Obviously, the minister neglected the main point of my question.

As a supplementary, since the closing of this deal, we have learned about a number of lump-sum payments by the province that were required to consummate the sale. This, I might add, is just one of them.

Considering the increase the province is having to pay to Lavalin to be rid of this corporation, is the minister now admitting that the government, through its fire-sale mentality, made a bad deal and one that has cost the taxpayers dearly? Is the minister readily admitting that, on closing, Lavalin gave the government $10 million, and then the government spent $3.5 million on the employees terminated by Lavalin?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We have been through this question on UTDC on more than one previous occasion. The members of the opposition on that side do not seem to understand that there is revenue coming in from the seven outstanding contracts from the old UTDC. From that outstanding revenue, all of these lump sums and other payments are made from that incoming revenue to the old UTDC.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Mrs. Grier: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment about the Niagara River. The minister will agree, I am sure, that the most serious threat to the health of the residents of Ontario is the potential of the Hyde Park dump site to flood Lake Ontario with dioxins. The minister has now been in office for 16 months and he has been no more successful than any one of his predecessors in getting the United States government to excavate that dump site.

Can the minister explain why his ministry has continued to go along with the interminable four-party negotiations and monitoring, and why he has refused to take independent legal action against Occidental Chemical, as I asked him to do several months ago'?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question is in two parts, as I see it, the first dealing with the Hyde Park site. As the member would be aware, on many occasions -- both on this side of the border and on the other side of the border and in my discussions with Henry Williams, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York state -- I have indicated clearly and publicly that we in Ontario believe the site, which was a toxic waste site at Hyde Park, should indeed be excavated. In that connection we provided funding -- I believe it was $25,000 -- to assist, along with the federal government, in providing funding to the Pollution Probe consulting firm investigation and report which, in our view, should point to the fact that the excavation of that site is a viable option.

The Americans, while not entirely and completely ruling out that option, have not described it as a favoured option at this time. We continue to indicate clearly that particular position to them, and we have a number of people on the other side of the river who are sympathetic to the position we have enunciated on many occasions.

As to the four-party agreement or discussions that the member indicates we have been involved in, it would be highly irresponsible for us to cut off those discussions and negotiations completely. As she would be aware, a minor advance was made this past week in that there was a technical agreement to proceed with some monitoring and evaluation, which ultimately would lead to the abatement.

The member is also aware that I am not satisfied that this is a sufficient step to deal with the problem of solution, except that it is the first step.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest it might be helpful if individual members did not ask two- and three-part questions. It actually took a little more than two minutes to get a response to the two questions.

Mrs. Grier: I asked a simple question: Why had he not taken legal action? If he intends to answer two different questions, all of which he has answered before and all of which amount to rhetoric instead of any commitment to action, I do not think I should be penalized.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member with a supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: We have heard it all before. We have heard that he wants excavation. We have heard that he supported other groups in intervening. We now have a respected scientific journal, Environmental Science and Technology, saying that within two years of a gush of dioxins in the Hyde Park site, the whole of Lake Ontario will be contaminated. We want to know why the minister is not meeting with Governor Cuomo, shouting to the federal government that it is not good enough and intervening on behalf of the people of this province in an independent legal action to get some cleanup.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I was under the impression that I was the only one who was suffering from high blood pressure, but after the put-down, if that is what it was, of the Speaker's ruling, perhaps I share that with the critic from the opposition.

As to the information that will be forthcoming from the investigation and report we are funding in conjunction with the federal government, the Pollution Probe initiative in this regard, we feel some significant ammunition will be found in the report that will assist us in any court case. As the member will be aware, up to this point, court cases have not been exceedingly successful and in the United States tend to be long and drawn out. I wish I could meet with Governor Cuomo. He is involved in a campaign at the present time and some may wish him well. I will not inject myself into that campaign.

I assure the member that we will take any and every effective action to continue to persuade our American friends of the benefits of undertaking the activity we have described.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. The minister will know that Metro council has given what could be described as its qualified endorsement of the implementation of market value assessment. The council has indicated it wants further studies done on the implications of moving to market value assessment. Given the minister's previous comment that he will not release individual assessment reports until after council has agreed to such a reform, will the minister please tell the House when we may expect these individual assessment reports to be released to the public and to this House?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very glad about the action taken by Metro council. I know they worked many long hours to come up with the resolution that indicated qualified support, which I thought was very satisfactory indeed.

I have pointed out previously that to make available house-by-house or property-by-property assessments would mean that anybody who had an assessment higher than was projected in the reassessment might have grounds to go to appeal and that we considered it unwise and not in the best interests of the ratepayers of the city of Toronto --

Mr. Harris: Share the information.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Okay, but I am trying to explain what the problem is. It would really depreciate the tax base of the various cities in Metropolitan Toronto. It has no effect on revenues for the province whatsoever.

I have spoken to the Metro chairman since that time and our people are meeting with him. I want to make available anything that can possibly further the studies and the work that is going forward in support of the move to market value assessment. For the reason I have tried to make clear, please do not take the idea immediately that we are somehow keeping back information that should be made public. If the members representing the ratepayers in that area feel the information should be sent out publicly, I will be glad to know that.

Mr. McFadden: The proposed tax reform could have a tremendous impact on a lot of home owners, as the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue is well aware. Many people could face very substantial tax increases. Surely this information should be made available to the public. Will the minister agree to release the information before the end of the study period that has been undertaken by Metro council, so that the taxpayers in Metro can have an idea about the impact this reassessment would have on their individual properties?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think most of the officials of Metropolitan Toronto share my concern that the information on a house-by-house basis would be counterproductive in that it might very well lead to a dislocation of the tax system, but all this information is available on the basis of regions and ranges which can give a clear indication of the numbers of people whose assessment would be raised and those whose assessment would be reduced. We are quite prepared to make all that information available to the tax officials of Metropolitan Toronto.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Financial Institutions will know that last week the Ontario Hospital Association decided to self-insure its members. It did that because of an eightfold increase in premiums to the hospitals over a two-year period when there was very little increase in payout. Will the minister ensure that the necessary backup of reinsurance is available, either through an arrangement with the current reinsurers or through provincial government guarantees, so the proposed hospital plan can be a success and save the government and the people of this province many millions of dollars?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold will know that as a result of the Slater committee report, and even prior to that, we had indicated through my ministry that we would help groups such as school boards, hospitals and municipalities to set up reciprocals, and we have given them information on how to do it. To date, both the boards of education and the hospitals have seen fit to make their own investigations and they have decided they want to proceed with the reciprocals. That is their decision, and to date no representations have been made to me for any sort of assistance. Until that happens, I cannot really respond.

Mr. Swart: What the minister has said is that he is not prepared to give any guarantee. Now that the hospitals have got themselves out from under the avarice of the private insurance companies -- the minister admits it was through their own initiative, not his -- what does he suggest an organization such as the Phyllis Griffiths Neighbourhood Community Centre in Scarborough should do? Although the centre has had no claims whatsoever, it has been unable to get liability insurance after trying for six months. It has cancelled baby-sitting, gymnasium, preschool nursery and children's ballet programs, programs for seniors and so forth.

Does the minister not think the thousands of horrendous situations such as the one that exists at the community centre dictate that he intervene and either regulate the rate of the current insurance companies to an affordable level or, as he has been asked to do by two of those directors, set up government insurance for these volunteer organizations?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Contrary to what the member said, that I refused to help the hospitals, I have not been asked to do anything for them; so there is no reason for any response.

To get back to the last point in the member's question, he will know that through the good offices of my ministry we were able to set up the Ontario liability insurers, which has been very successful, and I do not know of a single incident where insurance was not available; l do not know of one. I keep hearing these stories, and when we check them out we find insurance was available but they decided not to avail themselves of it. If the member can bring to my attention a case where they cannot get insurance --

Mr. Swart: I just did.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member will send me the details, I can probably guarantee that the Ontario liability insurers can find them insurance.

Mr. Ashe: I also have a question for the minister of beer, wine and financial institutions. He may have heard of an excellent service centre in Durham region called the Durham House Child and Family Centre, which happens to be domiciled in Oshawa. This institution, like many others -- I understand there are about 1, 800 similar agencies throughout the province -- has had great difficulty with liability insurance to the point that many of the directors feel they will have no alternative but to resign very shortly unless the problem is resolved.

For example, on the recent renewal of the centre's liability insurance, not only did the rates go up substantially, which is par for the course, but also two exclusion clauses were put in that the board of directors feels are untenable; that is, a child molestation exclusion clause and an athletic participation exclusion clause.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Ashe: An institution cannot operate with those kinds of exclusions.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ashe: What is the minister doing about this situation and approximately 1,800 others in the province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: My previous answer applies in many cases to the situation the member has brought to my attention. There is no question that when insurance companies look at the situation of child molestation, they get very nervous; it is something they have little control over, and many of them provide exclusions. Notwithstanding that, I say to the member as I said to the previous questioner that to my knowledge there is not a single institution in Ontario that cannot get that kind of insurance. It may not be happy with the rate, but the insurance is available. If the member will bring it to my attention and give me the details, I will be happy to pursue it for him.

Mr. Ashe: That is like saying if somebody cannot afford to drive a bicycle, we will provide a Cadillac as long as he can handle the payments.

So far, the Ontario liability insurance association has said it might be able to get $250,000 of coverage for child molestation and $1 million for athletic participation. The board feels, and I understand this is general throughout the industry, that $2 million is the absolute minimum that is required. The minister may think he is solving the problem, but he is not. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has just brought to our attention exactly the situation. There are boards that have arbitrarily decided, "Insurance is available at a specific level, but we want more and we do not want to pay any more for it." That is a decision they have to make. If no insurance is available, and child molestation is a perfect example, then there is a problem, but it is available. It may not be available at the level they want and at the price they want to pay, but that is something each group has to determine on its own. It is a business decision.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment arising from the study of soil-lead contamination in the neighbourhood of Toronto Refiners and Smelters. The minister knows that the September 1986 report indicates that average soil-lead concentration in the neighbourhood of Toronto Refiners and Smelters more than doubled from an average of 5,090 parts per million in 1980 to 11,745 parts per million in 1985.

Will the minister explain why, during this period in which soil-lead readings went up by 126 per cent, officials from his ministry consistently and repeatedly informed the residents who live around Toronto Refiners and Smelters that there were no risks, no hazards and no serious contamination problems from the plant? Why did officials attend community meetings and tell the residents these things when they knew they were not true? Why did they write these things in letters when they knew they were not true?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member originally raised this matter in the House last week in the form of a statement. I look for statements in Hansard, and I am attempting to track down some of the information the member brought before the House. I am making some inquiries internally within the ministry.

I know the member is going to supply me in the relatively near future with some supplementary written information that will guide me in attempting to ferret out precisely the instances in which these pieces of information were brought forward to the people in the neighbourhood. I look forward to receiving that information in a letter I know the member will be sending to me. We always want to be assured that the information provided in the past has been factual.

15:00

Mr. McClellan: I have sent the letter to the minister. To be specific, at a meeting of the Niagara Neighbourhood Association on October 26, 1984, the ministry, with a number of officials present, advised the residents not to be concerned, despite the fact that it turned out there had been four violations in the previous month, September 1984.

I can go on chapter and verse to document that his officials advised the residents of the neighbourhood that they had nothing to worry about and should not have any concerns; that the pollution was under control and they were not at risk. I want a full report from the minister on how the regulatory agency can engage in the systematic process of disinformation over a period of five years. I also want to know now what his ministry intends to do to protect those residents.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: On the first point, I have indicated to the member that I am prepared to gather the information he seeks. I have not yet seen the letter he has sent. When I do see it, it will provide some guidance as to the specifics of this. I will also investigate precisely what information was provided at the meeting of October 26, 1984. As I say, first of all, we want to ensure that the information provided all along has been factual, and where it has not been factual, to indicate that.

Second, in terms rectifying of the situation, there are a few avenues of action of which the member will be aware; one of them is to continue the efforts to abate the problem that exists at the company itself. The member will know that a program approval was in effect this summer under which certain activities were undertaken as required by the Ministry of the Environment and that further action will be taken during the shutdown of the company in December 1986.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In addition, there will be soil removal and other activities.

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), if he is in the wings.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Did the member watch him on TV last night?

Mr. Stevenson: No. I missed him.

Mr. Speaker: Is there another member wishing to ask a question?

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This weekend in Barrie, a mother had to give up her four children, three of whom went to the children's aid society, so she and her husband could find housing. What is the government going to do to ensure that the children of this province have adequate housing and that families are not forced to give up their children to find shelter?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not aware of the case the member is bringing to my attention, but I draw to his attention the fact that my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) made an announcement a few short weeks ago that an additional 3,000 units would be made available for people who were in these kinds of circumstances. Those units will be coming on to the market as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rowe: That does not do a lot for this mother and her children. As a matter of record, five other families in the city of Barrie may also have to give up their children to find housing. Today, we learned about there being $400 million in excess revenues in six months, yet in 1986, we have mothers giving up their children so they can find housing. What is the government going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will recall that my colleague the Minister of Housing announced 6,000 units last year, and I have just indicated 3,000 additional units have been put on the market. We are co-operating with a number of municipalities with respect to emergency housing. We have winter emergency housing programs all across the province, but the member surely realizes this is not something one turns on or off overnight.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General and his top ministry staff have recently been sharing with the press a new governmental concern for the enforcement of access rights for noncustodial parents. Will the Attorney General share with us the reason both he and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) have refused funding for the organization called Access for Parents and Children, which is the only organization in Metro Toronto providing supervised access programs for families in which access has become a battle and the children have become pawns?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member is correct. We are looking at methods within the jurisdiction of the province -- we have no control over orders made under the Divorce Act -- to ascertain whether access cannot be made more easily available and whether remedies cannot be available that are more appropriate when access arrangements fail. As the member will know, my ministry is not a line ministry that funds agencies of the type she describes, although I am familiar with the work of the agency to which she refers.

Ms. Gigantes: The Attorney General is proposing to change our legislation to make life more acceptable and easier for a kid whose family life has been broken up and where an access battle has developed, but at the same time he has not taken enough care to make sure the Minister of Community and Social Services, with whom he works in the cabinet, is providing funding for an existing program that is now threatened with closure because there has not been government funding. The United Church has become the funder of last resort for hundreds of families.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am delighted the member is supportive of the legislative scheme we are considering. It is very useful to have the support of the odd opposition member in matters of this type so we can finally get something done around here, and I am grateful for her help.

As the member knows well, the Minister of Community and Social Services and I talk regularly about these matters. He is very conscious, as I am, that worthwhile groups which make a contribution should be supported in so far as we can do so in terms of fiscal responsibility, and she will be glad to hear we will continue to take that attitude.

FLOODING

Mr. Brandt: I raised a question with the Minister of Municipal Affairs about a week ago, with respect to the problems of high water in communities at particular locations along the Great Lakes. Because the most recent reports that have come in within the past few days indicate further record highs for high water, is the minister working co-operatively with his ministerial colleagues to look at an emergency fund to help municipalities and others who are affected by these totally unprecedented high water levels?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The answer I gave to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) a couple of weeks ago still stands. Yes, I am working on a long-term program, and I indicated to the member that we have extended the existing program until the end of March 1987. I cannot control the waters, but we have not refused any municipal or township demands, and I am still interested in knowing more about any municipalities that complain to the member.

Mr. Brandt: I do not want to sound parochial by suggesting that only my municipality has problems. Municipalities up and down the Great Lakes are being critically and seriously affected by the high water problem, and the total loss of a road is now imminent in one of the municipalities I represent. The municipality has written it off, and there is no way of saving that road. We are faced with a critical situation that is unprecedented in the history of Ontario. These are historic high water levels that we have never experienced at any time previously.

Will the minister consider a new program, something that will respond, not in the long term but immediately, to the problem we are faced with at present? Something that comes up in a year or two years from now will not be adequate to serve the needs of the people who are being affected today.

15:10

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I mentioned before, the ministry has never refused a municipal demand at present. I am consulting with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to come up with a long-term solution to these problems, but I repeat, we have not turned down any municipal requests for roads or whatever the case may be. I am asking my colleague again to provide me with all his information, and I can guarantee that we will respond adequately.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education on a rather precise aspect of educational finance. He will be aware that the public boards of this province provide the bulk of, and in some cases all, the adult education programs that take place in many communities. Certainly, that is true in Toronto. Indeed, the public board of the city of Toronto itself has more adult students than it has nonadult students.

In the wake of Bill 30, Catholic adult education and adult re-entry students in the system in Toronto and greater Toronto are having to meet some new requirements by the public boards by way of having to declare their religious affiliation, then having to meet additional, sometimes multiple course fees and costs for their programmes.

What does the minister propose to do about this form of double discrimination that is creeping into the adult education programs in the public boards?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I have indicated to the honourable member on a number of occasions, this government is very supportive of expanding the base of the opportunities in the area of adult education. We have said throughout the discussion, with respect of the bill to which he makes reference, that we wanted the separate and the public systems to expand their activities in this area. We have provided additional funding for that to take place. Obviously, we have said in the legislation, Bill 30, with the support of the committee, that we want a policy of open access to characterize the student admissions policy of both boards. We would expect that to take place at the adult education level as well as elsewhere in the secondary panel.

I certainly want to suggest to the member that we will be very anxious to look at any information he might care to provide to ensure that in this period of transition those government objectives are met.

Mr. Allen: The minister will recall that in recent years the past administration reduced its commitment to all adult education in the system as a whole and, therefore, the boards have some problems financing those programs. Second, those boards are not allowed to charge properly for credit courses, for literacy courses, for English-as-a-second-language courses and for French-as-a-second-language courses. Surely he is not suggesting it would be proper for a double system of fees to develop in the public boards based on religion and thus provide pressure for duplication in the separate system of re-entry programs and so on, a duplication that really is unnecessary.

Surely it is improper. It is certainly invidious for the public boards to ask the religion of registrants. It is foolish to virtually require that duplication and unfair to the public boards for them to have to bear the full burden of the cost. Can the minister not move in and meet some of that additional cost to those boards so that those unfortunate developments do not happen?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to the member that we have tried to the best of our ability over recent months to expand the opportunities for school boards in this area of adult education. My colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I have both been involved in a number of new initiatives -- with respect to literacy, for example -- and we have made changes within the general legislative grant that we believe are an important step forward.

We do not want to see unnecessary duplication. We do not want to see anything but a harmonious relationship between boards in the interests of all the students. We want to see the most equitable financial treatment of students and boards in this connection. I repeat, if the member has specific information he would like to share, I know he will be aware he will have that opportunity in the very near future. I look forward to receiving the information.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton).

"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 it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my 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."

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 67 persons from the riding of Beaches-Woodbine and it 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 racetrack;

"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 racetrack 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.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McKessock from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

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

Ministry administration program, $39,179,500; policy planning and research program, $8,475,000; safety and regulation program, $72,372,000; provincial highways program, $436,802,000; provincial transit program, $88,000,000; provincial transportation program, $6,282,500; municipal roads program, $442,429,000; municipal transit program, $307,398,000; and communications program, $2,273,000; and

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

Ministry administration program, $5,000,000.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can we adjourn for 10 minutes until the government gets somebody in here to call the orders of the day?

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Mr. Chairman: Before we start --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: May I inquire just which minister of the crown is carrying these estimates at the moment?

Mr. Chairman: I am looking around with that in mind. Is there an answer from the government benches?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to accept the earlier advice that we take a brief recess while we find the government House leader, who has been called out to --

Mr. Barlow: The minister is speechless. I do not believe it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, I am speechless. Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Before this gets into any kind of a circus, Mr. Conway has moved that we have a 10-minute recess. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry? Carried.

The House recessed at 3:21 p.m.

15:30

Mr. Chairman: We are here for the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Before we start, how does the committee wish to proceed? Does it wish the time allocated between votes and items, or does it wish to do everything remaining under vote 1001, item 1, and carry all votes and items at the end?

Mr. Ashe: I suggest it is easier for all concerned, including the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), I hope, for all the items to be discussed under the one item in its broadest sense and the votes taken at the end.

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee wish to carry them all at the end? Yes.

Approximately how long is the Treasurer's statement? Twenty minutes to a half-hour?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or shorter.

Mr. Chairman: That is fine. I presume the critics have approximately the same, more or less. I am trying to ensure we have time for noncritics and nonministers to ask some questions before we run out of time.

On vote 1001, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very glad the House arranged for me to have a few moments to meet the press after my statements on the allocations earlier today. It is quite important that the press have the critics and the minister available in matters of that import. That the House had to adjourn for 10 minutes is inconvenient, but it is worth while and I appreciate it.

It is my pleasure as Treasurer and Minister of Economics to present the estimates of the ministry for the first time. Earlier this afternoon, in tabling the Economic and Fiscal Review, I reported that Ontario's economy is performing well and that the ministry's projections for economic growth continue to be optimistic for the medium term.

At around seven per cent, Ontario's unemployment level is among the lowest in Canada and should continue to drop. One of the most encouraging signs is the country's stable inflation rate, which is projected to stay at four per cent this year. We expect an even lower rate next year. Moreover, the prime interest rate, another key economic indicator, is currently under 10 per cent for the first time since 1978. However, real growth is what makes the wheels turn, and ministry staff are projecting a real growth rate of 4.1 per cent this year in Ontario.

This generally favourable economic picture does not apply to all parts of the Ontario economy, however, or to all parts of the province. One of this government's first actions after taking office was to set up a cabinet committee on northern development. Several initiatives for the north and other areas facing economic hardship have been brought forward since that time.

Ontario must also take note of the serious economic problems being experienced in other regions of Canada. This province recognizes its responsibilities to a strong Confederation. We realize that we must put our own strong performance in a national context and that national co-ordination on key economic issues is critically important.

I want to mention as well the continued depressed economic factors in the agricultural community, of which I am one of several representatives in this House. Our programs through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food are designed to improve that situation.

I have the opportunity to meet regularly with the provincial and federal finance ministers to discuss these matters, and I attended one such meeting last week in Edmonton.

Some of Ontario's concerns are already on the federal agenda. These include the proposal for international banking centres, proposed federal cuts in social transfers, the business transfer tax and tax reform in general. As I have emphasized on earlier occasions, we are also very concerned about major items not yet explicitly on the federal-provincial discussion list, such as child care and the reform of the financing of social programs.

Since becoming Treasurer, I have stressed that a major issue for Ontario is the federal approach to cutbacks in established programs financing in support of health care and post-secondary education. Changes in the EPF arrangements will reduce Ontario's revenue by $114 million this year and by close to $2 billion over the next five years. These transfer cuts will weaken the partnership under which the federal government is committed to share substantially and equitably in the financing of health and post-secondary education programs that the provinces deliver.

I support the federal initiative on tax reform, having stated in the May 1986 budget that a thorough review of the entire tax system was necessary. Mr. Wilson's recent announcement of guidelines for comprehensive tax reform indicates his ongoing commitment to this important area. It should be kept in mind, however, than any consideration of fundamental changes in our tax system cannot take place without examining the issue of how taxes are shared among levels of government.

If the provinces are to continue to deliver major programs to people, we need a commitment from the Minister of Finance that tax reform will not produce further provincial revenue cuts. We will continue our ongoing dialogue with Ottawa and the other provinces on these important matters and work closely with them in the best interests of Ontario taxpayers.

I expect most of our taxpayers will agree that it is sound business practice to pay today for the things consumed today. As Treasurer, my approach to the province's financial affairs is to pay as you go and to borrow for long-term capital projects of benefit to future generations of Ontarians. To plan in a businesslike way, our balance sheet must reflect the true state of our financial affairs. That is why I removed from Ontario's books the more than $2 billion in financial assets that did not represent any real value other than to reveal what the province owed to itself.

The steps we took to put an end to pocket-to-pocket bookkeeping involved a number of agencies, including the Ontario Land Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp. as well as our public hospitals and various water treatment and control facilities. We also removed from the province's balance sheet the equity holdings of four major crown corporations, the Ontario Development Corp., the Ontario Energy Corp., the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. In the case of Suncor, the recorded investment for Suncor shares was written off and the note repaid.

To reduce the cost of government, we also wound down the Inflation Restraint Board, the Ontario Economic Council and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. In discontinuing the IDEA Corp., we promised to give taxpayers better value for their tax dollars by replacing the former operation with one more tightly focused in the pre-venture capital area and centred on the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

We are making radical changes in the way Ontario's financial affairs are managed. The main thrust of this has been to bring a more comprehensive approach to capital expenditure planning by the various ministries. In future, each ministry will submit a multi-year capital plan to identify its needs and report the impact of new capital spending on future operating costs. These plans will be updated annually and reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with overall government objectives.

Our policy to finance net cash requirements from internal sources remains unchanged. In a statement earlier today dealing with the second quarter Ontario Finances report, I noted that our net cash requirements are being reduced by $107 million this fiscal year. The reduction in our financing needs will be reflected in lower Canada pension plan borrowings; in fact, the lowest level of borrowings since 1968-69. Further, we are repaying more than $300 million in maturing loans from the CPP. As a result, Ontario's debt to the plan will show little or no increase in 1986-87.

On the other hand, spending pressures continue to persist, especially in the area of social services. Nevertheless, we are continuing to focus our efforts on controlling the government's operating account.

15:40

In terms of our objectives, this government has placed increased emphasis on health care and education. Significant measures are being taken to support our commitment to these urgent priorities. As members are aware from the statement I made today on major transfer payments, the total allocation for hospitals will be increased by 7.4 per cent in 1987-88, and provincial operating support for educational institutions will be increased by substantially more than the four per cent originally promised in October.

At this point in the proceedings, I would like to take a moment to highlight some current activities and initiatives taking place within the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The ministry has three line divisions, an administration program and four agencies. To promote effective utilization of resources, Treasury provides a range of general administrative services to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Ministry of Energy, the Management Board secretariat, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Premier and Cabinet Office.

Over the past year, there have been a number of organizational changes within the ministry. Last month, for example, Larry Leonard joined us as the new assistant deputy minister responsible for the office of the budget and intergovernmental finance.

Earlier this year, the pension and income support policy branch was disbanded and most of its staff transferred to the intergovernmental finance policy branch; four of its staff, however, went to the Public Sector Pensions Advisory Board, chaired by Ethel McLellan. These changes reflect the reorganization of pension policy responsibilities in the government generally.

Also on the pension front, the Task Force on the Investment of Public Sector Pension Funds, chaired by Malcolm Rowan, has been established to review the investment options of public sector pension funds. The task force has asked that briefs from interested parties be submitted by March 2 and plans to make its recommendations to me late in 1987.

Another study currently in progress at Treasury and Economics is the one dealing with growth areas and export opportunities within the service sector. This study, commissioned in October 1985, is being prepared by George Radwanski, and an interim report on the service sector in Ontario was tabled with the May 1986 budget. The final study will be released in the near future.

In keeping with the government's commitment to French-language services, I would like to mention that Ontario Finances, Ontario Statistics and the three volumes of public accounts are being produced for the first time both in French and in English.

I look forward to the comments made by the honourable members opposite, both the official critics and others, including members of my own party. When we get into the direct question-and-answer area, I will be assisted by Deputy Treasurer Brock Smith and the appropriate officials, who, with the permission of the House, I will ask to join me once the formal statements have been made.

Mr. Chairman: Before the critic for the official opposition speaks, I will draw the members' attention to the fact that there are certain gremlins in the clocks and they will be rectified in due course. Do not believe what you see on the clocks; they are going at such a rate that we would be through estimates this afternoon, and that is not likely.

The critic for the official opposition -- he is not here? We are not going to have another 10-minute break, are we?

Mr. Ashe: I will speak very briefly. I know my colleague, who was out opening the new automobile plant in his riding -- without giving him a plug -- will have an additional response in due course.

Listening to the Treasurer today and to his earlier economic statement was rather intriguing. It is amazing that all this extra cash flow the Treasurer has indicated -- which he has finally fessed up to, to use the words of my leader a little earlier on -- is just about dead on the exact numbers we indicated some time ago.

As I recall, at that time this party indicated the Treasurer was probably hiding something in the order of $800 million of revenue this fiscal year. It seems to me he and his leader jumped up and down and waved their arms, saying, "No way." Lo and behold, now comes the time of truth. We find that some $405 million of additional revenue has accrued to the Treasury, which I suggest is thanks to the sound economic policies put in force by the previous government and a rather boisterous economy that is happening thanks to anybody and everybody who wants to take credit for it.

I am interested in hearing from the Treasurer at the earliest opportunity a little more detail on some of the rationale behind the organizations he briefly touched on. I do not know that he will want to spend time on the Ontario Economic Council, but he may want to spend a little time on the reorganization within the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

I suppose one can challenge that this has more to do with Management Board, but I do not think so. The Treasurer wears that hat right now anyway. He is acting Chairman of Management Board, government House leader, Minister of Revenue et al. It appears that, along with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), he is running the whole operation anyway. I am sure he has provided and will want to provide all the answers to anything and everything we ask.

He is the bookkeeper, the keeper of the Treasury and the overseer of expenditures. I am interested in knowing his reaction to some numbers that are contained in his overall estimates, having to do not only with the Ministry of Treasury and Economics but also with a couple of the other ministries he oversees which I mentioned before, as to the actual cost of operating the minister's offices within the new government of Ontario.

We are led to believe, and I concur with it, that we have somebody who is generally known as a frugal person as Minister of Revenue, Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, government House leader and last but not least, Treasurer and Minister of Economics. He is supposedly taking care of the purse-strings. Sometimes I wonder how strong the fingers are on the purse-strings. Although we can see all the extra revenues coming in, there seems to be a hole in the bottom of the purse, and I would have thought the Treasurer would have put in a few stitches by this time.

We heard some announcements today about major program funding for next year. We are not into those right now, but we will undoubtedly be dissecting them in a little more detail; they are not relevant to this year's estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I would like to see some numbers. I would like to hear what the Treasurer honestly feels about the costs of government, particularly in relation to the operation of the ministers' offices, suites and huge staffs. He used to talk about the ministers' chauffeur-driven limousines. I think I can use his exact words. I could make direct reference to this in Hansard on more than one occasion during the time he sat on this side of the House, and I look forward to that opportunity again.

I would like to know the comparison numbers, ministry to ministry and collectively, and what the Treasurer feels about them. This is where I think he lost hold of the purse-strings, probably against his better judgement. I suppose the Attorney General had a louder voice in cabinet that day and was able to speak louder than the Treasurer on behalf of all the colleagues who lined up behind him. If the Treasurer had been at the head of that line, I know he would have taken care of the hard-earned tax dollars a little more frugally, such as the extra $405 million that has come in during the first six months, than the way it has turned out.

15:50

I am not going to carry on at any great length. We have left a few points for the Treasurer to explain in a general sense about the reorganization, possibly in a little more detail, and more important, how he can reconcile the difference that both he and his leader espoused not long ago when we said $800 million of additional revenue was probably hiding in those walls of Treasury.

Last but not least, I would like to hear about the Treasurer's personal in-depth feeling about the cost of running the ministries and helping bring the ministers around to their various functions since that government took over not that many months ago. I think he talked about it being 15 months ago; I think it is now up to a year and a half, and it is big bucks.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am standing in for Mr. Foulds, our deputy leader, who has been called back to Sault Ste. Marie for the conference on the north that is going on. I would like to make a few comments about the ministry on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Given my background and my interests, my comments may be from a different perspective from those customarily made by many critics of Treasury.

It is indeed a good thing that in Ontario we brag about an unemployment rate of seven per cent compared to some of our sister provinces which are much worse off. I presume none of us is yet happy and acclimatized to the notion of this being full employment, as some theorists would have it these days. We should also be pleased that inflation is at four per cent and that the prime interest rate is under 10 per cent. Given the situation, real growth of 4.1 per cent in the coming year is also something that should make any Treasurer's job an easy one.

We saw just how easy it is today, with a windfall of $400 million. In the first six months of this year, the Treasurer was able to be several weeks early for Christmas and give what turned out to be alms for the poor rather than the generous gifts that some of us had been expecting.

I want to try to put in context the role of the Treasury in the accumulation of wealth in Ontario with its social policy. We often have a very strange dichotomy in our views about economic policy and social policy. As are many people these days, I am trying to talk about the fact that these things must always be looked at together. The parallel at the municipal level would be the whole concept of land use planning and official plans not having anything to do with people, social services or the kinds of issues that are going to affect the new neighbourhood, but only with institutions and the tax structure and the heavy equipment requirements of a new municipality.

The same thing is true for the Treasurer. It has not been customary in Ontario, at least not in the seven years I have been here, to hear Treasurers speaking a great deal about the redistributive role of the government or about its role in trying to get more equity in what we do with the income we raise. We mostly hear that the statistics of the signs of success are a seven per cent rate of unemployment and four per cent real growth, etc. Very seldom do we look at some of the downsides of what is happening in the economy and ask why the social policy of the government is not integrated with its economic policy to address those things. It strikes me as being somewhat ironic, but then perhaps I have an overstimulated sense of irony. Who knows? I have many character traits that are specific to me, which we do not need to allude to at this point.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You list some and I will list some.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will list the bad ones then and leave the others to the Treasurer.

It seems somewhat ironic that the Treasurer would be up today talking about how we will redistribute the new, unexpected largess windfall of $400 million that he received, and I would be up on a leadoff question stemming from a conference on hunger in Canada.

I was asking my question of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), a question that came from one of the family benefits recipients from British Columbia at the conference, who said we should each go back and ask our elected member what his specific plan was to stop all these food banks from being necessary and to eliminate hunger, and to put a time frame on it.

At one stage in that conference, people were really saying: "We should say to the politicians that, as of this date two years from today, we are going to wipe out the food banks; we are not going to operate them any more. What are your plans?" They decided to hold back from that because there was clearly a need to provide for people while governments got their act together. That is why I got up and asked the Minister of Community and Social Services what his specific plans were to eradicate the need for food banks and to make sure nobody would be hungry in Ontario within 18 months.

This came on exactly the same day that the minister had an extra $400 million thrown into his lap, or he has had it now for the last six months -- and it has not been in a sock, I do not think, beneath the bed in Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. It seems strange to me that all I heard about was some money going to institutions, which the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) reminds me really seems to echo the Henderson report of 1976 in terms of that 5.5 per cent, 5.6 per cent.

Mr. McClellan: Exactly the same numbers. "Lead boots" it was called then.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In those days the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) was the minister who talked about it. He was known as the member with lead boots. This was a totally inappropriate amount of money to be providing, and here all of a sudden these same figures show themselves in the Treasurer's announcement today when he has got this windfall, and not one word about the people on the underside of what is going on in Ontario.

Here we have the example of the new wealth coming from our higher employment rates and our low inflation. Yet in any of this, have we redressed the problems at all for those people at the bottom? The answer is no.

Our researcher was telling me that if we were just to take the National Council of Welfare's most recent figures for the poverty line -- something I am always reluctant to do, just choosing one out of the air -- if we were to take that one and look at all the working poor who fall underneath that at the moment, who are incredibly heavily taxed in this province, we could have eradicated all the provincial taxes on those people for a cost of about $100 million. That might have been a slightly more dramatic, slightly more interesting kind of move for our Treasurer to make than just applying old Tory increases to our educational institutions in Ontario.

I raised with the Minister of Community and Social Services today the incredible, cruel anachronism of its being possible in Ontario for a family benefits mother with three children to be living on virtually $1,000 a month less than a middle-class family would get to look after those three children, if she had three teen-age children, if they became wards of the state.

It is possible. I will bring this specific figure to the Treasurer's attention. A family benefits mother in Ontario with three children can receive as little as $660 a month. Normally, she does not need much in the way of shelter allowance, according to the province, if that is the case. This is a person whose housing concerns are taken care of, but that is for herself and her three children.

If those three teen-age children, for instance, were then taken from her because she felt she could not manage them or because there were problems in the home stemming from trying to live on that amount of money, and if they went to a middle-class foster home, they could receive as much as $528 for each child's costs for his basic needs for that month. That is not much less than the $660 for the mother and three children on family benefits. Even if that mother received the maximum possible that one can get in Ontario, she would still get about $600 less than would the foster parents to look after those kids. Out of that income, the mother would have to take out amounts for her rent, her food and her clothing, as well as all the children's needs.

16:00

If that does not seem to the minister to be a structural condemnation of the poor, guaranteeing that those people will stay poor, and an aid to the middle class who wish to assist the poor, I do not know what is. Does the Treasurer understand that our children's aid societies deal almost entirely with the poor?

For instance, in the last figures I have seen for the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto -- they may be different now, but I doubt it very much -- 66 per cent of its families earn $8,000 or less and only 0.34 per cent earn more than $20,000 a year.

We set into place an incredibly expensive system called the children's aid society to catch the problems of the poor who cannot afford to look after their kids, who cannot afford to buy the services to keep their kids from getting into trouble and to keep the home from falling apart. Through the children's aid societies, we pay the middle class enormous amounts of money to look after those children in comparison to what the family benefits recipients receive.

The Treasurer may not think that is his business. He may feel it is up to the Minister of Community and Social Services to make his pitch for some of the dollars. At a time when we are doing well, in the Treasurer's terms, and unemployment is down to a level he will brag about, when our inflation is down to levels which he is sure will be even lower next year, when he gets a windfall of $400 million, it is precisely his role at that time to say, "I want you to give me, Mr. Minister of Community and Social Services, an indication of something I can do through the tax system, something I can do in terms of funding programs that will assist the poor." While the province is surging ahead with this new vitality he wants us to think is out there, he should ensure that at least the people at the bottom get some assistance. If he is not going to think about doing it now when we are in the green, does he expect a Treasurer to stand up when we are in the dry times to provide that type of assistance to people?

During the middle 1980s, when we started to go through the recession, we saw what happened. The Treasurer at that time started to take more and more away from those people who did not have. He tried as much as possible to buffer his middle class so they would not revolt against him during those tough times. It is only in the good times that he has the freedom to be able to assist these people, from his philosophical days, and yet he has chosen not to do that.

A question was raised by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) today about the problem of housing. People were actually considering giving up their children, as he put it, in order to get housing, because they could not afford it otherwise and they hoped to get government assistance through it.

Knowing their children were now going to bring in approximately $500 a month in income for a family to look after them versus $100 a month, which is what a family benefits mother gets per child over the first child, that might be an option that responsible, poor people would actually consider. They would allow the children to be taken over by this structure called the children's aid society, because the government cannot afford to look after them, and they would be better protected.

My message to the minister is simple. He is the Treasurer at a very good time to be Treasurer. This is a time when it is very easy to look good, but all the Treasurer has done is choose the old Tory way. He knows the pressure points are the universities and the colleges and the institutional infrastructure of the province, and he knows they will not find it acceptable if he does not give them a little extra support. He responds to that, not by giving them what they want but by giving them enough to keep them quiet and make it look as though he is being generous. He does nothing at all to support the people who are at the bottom.

When the Treasurer presented his budget, I raised with him the fact that his plan to assist the working poor with their Ontario health insurance plan premiums was not going to come into effect until January, two months from now; yet all sorts of people who are working poor were going to be taken off premium assistance or were not eligible for it in its entirety because of the increases in the minimum wage that have occurred in the past two years. The Treasurer realized at that point that it was time for assistance, but he delayed its implementation. Why does he not use this period to speed it up? Why does he not make the announcement, as he could have done months ago knowing that this increase was coming through, to make sure there is that assistance to the poor in Ontario?

It is hard for us on this side to be enthusiastic about a ministry that does not take the opportunities when they are there. From my perspective as a critic for Community and Social Services, who for years has been demanding we pay more attention to the poor, it is particularly disappointing that at a time when the ministry actually gets some largess to distribute, not one cent goes in their direction.

Those are my opening comments. I am sure other members of the party will have comments to add during the rest of the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In response to the comments by the honourable members, I would like to say something about the so-called hidden revenue pot that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) refers to from time to time. There is not much I can do to persuade him not to keep referring to it, other than to say that Ontario Finances is published and widely disseminated four times a year and that it is the responsibility of the Treasury to put forward at that time any changes in revenues or expenditures compared with the budget plan.

The large increase in revenues that is reported in this Ontario Finances is largely from the buoyancy of the revenues from personal income tax that are collected by the government of Canada. It is its job to predict to us what the revenues will be that it collects and returns to our Treasury. We were informed, not officially but unofficially, about a week ago that these additional revenues would be forthcoming. There may be even more before the end of the year, but we have to go on the projections that come from the government of Canada in this regard.

16:10

We must also point out that certain other revenue sources for the province over which we are directly responsible have shown additional revenues. Retail sales tax is predicted to be up by $50 million. Corporations tax revenue is projected to be up by $22 million. The mining profits tax is projected to be up by $30 million. This is on a basis of assessments that have been made.

I will not go through the whole list. I simply point out that there is no fund and no cost that is not reported in Ontario Finances that is a variable from the original budget plan. I do not find it terribly irritating, and I can understand the motives of the Leader of the Opposition when he continues to talk about an election slush fund, but such a fund, slush or otherwise, does not exist. I assure the honourable members and anybody else who will pay attention to my words that the numbers available to me as Treasurer are reported regularly through Ontario Finances and are as precise and correct as we can make them; they are upgraded regularly.

The member also referred to the costs of the ministers' offices as compared with the costs of administering the offices in the previous administration. I do not have a paper handy on that, but before the estimates are completed, I hope to have some additional information that will be comparable. The members will know that the last time this was raised, which I believe was during interim supply last spring, we did provide quite a bit of additional information indicating that the costs were roughly comparable and, if anything, we were getting by on less staff. I will be glad to provide the specifics on that before these estimates are concluded.

The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) also asked for details on reorganization in the Treasury. Treasury reorganization has not been that extensive other than that the responsibility for pensions has been largely transferred to the new Ministry of Financial Institutions. It is an adjunct to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, and the main thrust of pension development and policy now lies with that new ministry. It is still my job to inform the other treasurers with whom we meet fairly regularly about emerging pension policy. I have not had very much to say to them recently, but perhaps some time in the near future this will be a matter for presentation of legislation in this House.

On the subject of reorganization in general, I was interested in turning up the information available to me in the book here. The all-in staff component has changed from 464 in 1985 to 439 in 1986, including both classified and unclassified staff. If the critic is worrying about the directions, that seems to be appropriate. He will also remember we have disbanded the Ontario Economic Council and certain other adjuncts to the ministry which principally account for the reduction in staff members.

We have not undertaken far-reaching, overall reorganization. I hesitate to say it was perfect when it was passed on, but in my view it seems to be functioning very well. There had been a few specific changes in personnel. The most interesting one, which is quite recent, is that Peter Sadlier-Brown, who was the assistant deputy minister for budget policy, has been transferred to the Ministry of Labour as assistant deputy minister. I have already referred to the fact that we have another assistant deputy minister for budget policy, who will be assisting me in responding to questions on those matters.

I was interested in the comments made by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), the new financial critic, and a very competent one he is. I do not want to protest too much, because I would be even more unbelievable in what I am about to say, but we do try in this government to accept our responsibilities for social policy in what we hope is a more effective and sensitive way than our predecessors. I do not want that to sound nasty, but that is our view of ourselves, whether or not it is correct.

At meetings of the treasurers, we have emphasized the fact that tax reform must include a reform of the views of the government of Canada, in co-operation with the various provinces, having to do with financing social programs that are emerging in importance, such as child care and particularly a new approach to a guaranteed income program. Perhaps we will have a chance to discuss this in more detail in the depths, or the heights, of the estimates. It is something we are interested in. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has instructed me to raise it with my colleagues in the various other treasuries and with the Minister of Finance. It is something we believe has to be an intrinsic and important part of tax reform. This hardly puts us on the level of caring of the member, but perhaps the same problems apply with my reputation in this regard as he would experience.

I can assure the member that we are all interested in having social policy as an intrinsic part of economic policy. We are not forgetting that. I jotted down the allocation of additional expenditures, which took place not so much because of giving thought to where the additional money would be spent but because program pressures had to be responded to. Slightly less than $100 million of the $400 million to which the member referred goes for programs in the social field. These are not all directed to what we might call the needy end of the social spectrum, but they certainly involve housing, health, community and social programs themselves, native affairs and so on.

I also point out to the member and others that our tax reduction program has been strengthened year by year. There are approximately 700,000 people in Ontario who pay taxes under the personal income tax program federally and are exempt provincially because of our tax reduction program. I am very proud of that, and it has been strengthened in each of the years when I have had the responsibility for the budget.

During this time, the government of Canada has eliminated its tax reduction program entirely. In other words, there is no special federal allocation of funds to remove those people who, as the member said, are below the poverty line and still caught in the tax net at the federal level. The member is also correct when he says there are still people below the poverty line in this province paying taxes. Because of the change in the minimum wage, I agree there has been some dislocation that is not fair, and we should give more attention to it.

That is about all I have to say in response to the opening remarks. I will appreciate hearing further from the members and hearing their questions. If it is not inconvenient, I ask that the deputy and whoever he feels might be suitable to advise me, be allowed to come here, and we will get out a table and carry on with this in a more businesslike fashion.

Mr. McCague: I am glad to have a chat with the Treasurer today.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Are you discussing the first item?

Mr. McCague: I am freewheeling -- anything at all.

The Deputy Chairman: Okay.

16:20

Mr. McCague: It was a great day in Dufferin-Simcoe. As I recall, the year we got the Accord in Alliston was the day we got bombed by the accord in Toronto. The Premier and the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) were participating in ceremonies marking the official first car off the line at Honda today. It was a great day for my area of the province, and for that I give the Treasurer absolutely no thanks; it all happened before he got that job. That does not mean he is not doing a good job --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the member going to give me credit for the courthouse?

Mr. McCague: Yes; full credit for the courthouse.

They were both extremely nice gentlemen today. I was pleased to welcome them to the area, as I know the local Liberals did the Treasurer a month or so ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There were a lot of them there.

Mr. McCague: Yes, there were; they had room for 118, and there were 17 of them there.

Anyway, I know the Treasurer to be a gentlemen and a person who is trying his best to run the financial affairs of the province. With the kind of help he has in front of him, he cannot go wrong; they were there before he was, and for that we are grateful.

We also appreciate the bonanza that the government has had in finances. He is a poor forecaster but again, for that, we are thankful.

The Treasurer should be thankful that the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) has been taken overseas by the Treasurer's colleague and that he is not faced with her. As a matter of fact, I have her comments here. I cannot understand most of the words, and the minister will not either, so I am not going to use them.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member cannot read her writing?

Mr. McCague: No. It is not her writing; it is those words about what type of operation she thinks the minister should have and all those types of things that get us all upset.

However, as the estimates go on, standing in for the member for York Mills, I will want to discuss such things as unemployment. The Treasurer probably does not agree that there is much of that around. I see here that he talked about how many people were hired and so forth and so on.

On Bill 38, I need a little money in Stayner for an arena and --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member want to thank me for the courthouse in Orangeville?

Mr. McCague: Do I want to thank the Treasurer for the courthouse in Orangeville? Yes, I do. I cannot thank him for more than a year or maybe a month. I need some more things.

As I told him the other day, we need a hospital in Orangeville, and we need an arena in Stayner. I know he is always co-operative, and I have done my best to try to persuade the people in my riding of what a nice fellow he is. I hope he does not let me down.

The softwood lumber matter is an issue in my riding, not so much because of the manufacturing there but because of the employment that is involved. We have talked about the Ontario Economic Council many times before. I am glad he has somebody in his office now who replaces it. He really has not done much about Hydro. He is a very predictable type of guy. All I had to do was to read the speeches he made over the past 11 years -- I have known about them for that long -- and I knew what he was going to do when he got into a position of power.

I have little to do with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education; I am not sure what he is going to do about that. That was one of the minister's pets.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is on the back burner.

Mr. McCague: I heard that. Leave it there. That will be great for me.

Then there is the credit rating. I presume the Treasurer is going to go down and talk to the boys in New York and come back with his chest stuck out this far. He should, because we left him a good legacy. Why would he want to mess it up?

I was impressed as well as amused by the Treasurer's comments on the staff. We will get to the truth some day, as we will about the hospital funding. I have tried that with him many times, and I cannot get to the bottom of that, but we will one of these days. If he gives me enough money to finance the 14 beds in Collingwood and to build a new hospital in Orangeville, then I will give up the subject. Until that time, I do not think I will.

The $850 million that is imprinted here still concerns me, because I do not know what the Treasurer is up to. He might answer those few questions. As we go through, I will have others to raise.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member raised two or three points of continuing interest. The implication in his reference to the arena in Stayner was that, somehow or other, I have reduced the allocation of funds for purposes of recreation. I can assure the member that is not the case.

In the past two years we have allocated more than the revenues from Wintario and Lottario for arenas, recreation and culture. In spite of that fact, there is still a nominal or notional surplus contained in the consolidated revenue fund from the years before the Liberals took office when the Progressive Conservatives did not spend the allocated revenues from Wintario and Lottario. I believe that notional surplus is about $170 million, and I can assure the member that in the next few years that surplus, in quotation marks, will be more than utilized for the support of recreational and cultural pursuits in the province.

Going way back to the days when the Conservative party brought in lotteries as a basis of financing government programs, however, my own feeling was that allocation was somewhat misleading. Although the law said it should, the government of the day did not allocate the money as was required but kept an account of it and used a little more in election years than it did in between, which is understandable.

Mr. McClellan: Now the minister understands it, does he?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member had better too. My own understanding of the democratic process is that the members of this House should decide what emphasis should go to the allocation of public funds for recreation and culture, for the provision of health services, for the building of courthouses and for senior citizens' homes associated with churches. I say that for the benefit of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). It is up to us to come in here and try to influence the government, the Treasurer and the different ministers as to the allocation of those funds.

I am sure the member is aware that his opinions are very influential. It is similar to somebody burning his hand on a hot stove. We do not like doing that. If we are doing something for which the opposition criticizes us, we look into the alternatives and try to accede to the advice coming from members from all sides. Quite often we cannot do that, or perhaps we do not do it as fast as some of the enthusiasts opposite would like, but their views and opinions are extremely influential. I did not realize that before, but I now know that even in the olden days, they did have an impact on government policy.

I am simply saying that while Bill 38 would remove the designation of those funds -- and I believe it is entirely appropriate -- and it would in no way reduce the funding for recreation and culture, because of what I consider to be lack of understanding of if not lack of support for my position, the bill will sit on Orders and Notices for a while until it might be more appropriate to move it forward; i.e., until there is more time in the Legislature for extended debate.

Since there are so many important bills requiring our time now, I have indicated to the House leaders that I will not proceed with this one. I simply say, more and more strongly as I go on in this debate, please do not get the idea that this government does not continue what was a good appropriation under the previous government to both of these important areas. If Stayner continues to apply, I am sure it will get every reasonable consideration.

The member has mentioned hospitals and the $850-million fund for capital purposes that was announced in the budget last May. My own interest in that is on the basis that we want to be able to provide sufficient information well in advance to the various hospital boards and the communities at large as to what we are prepared to do and are capable of doing over the next few years so that they can plan appropriately. I think that is commendable. I sense in the former minister's views and from the way he is nodding his head that he agrees with that as an initiative.

16:30

I do not for a moment think the $850 million we have been talking about will be sufficient. There will never be a time in this House when the government members and the opposition members feel fully satisfied that sufficient capital has been made available, but we are going to do our best. I suggest there will be substantially more than $850 million applied for hospital capital over the next five years. I believe it will be more than that, not less.

The honourable member also referred to the famous credit rating. I do not want to dwell on this particularly, other than to tell him that the well-known and highly respected Canadian Bond Rating Service Ltd. saw fit to raise Ontario to triple-A status just a few months ago, indicating in a press release associated with it that we were the financial cornerstone of the nation, a phrase I quite like. It is their phrase, not mine, but one I thought was quite good.

The Canadian Bond Rating Service is not and would never put itself forward as being anything equivalent to Standard and Poor's or Moody's Investors Service Inc. Moody's has maintained our triple-A rating. About a year ago, Standard and Poor's reduced us to double-A-plus. Since then, it has derated most of the other provinces or many of them, including, God forbid, Alberta itself.

Alberta has fallen on difficult times with the substantial and unexpected reduction in the world price of petroleum. That is to be expected. As a matter of fact, growth in Alberta is estimated to be negative. There is going to be a recession there, according to the figures its Treasurer has made public, because of its problems in financing the programs in place. Before we weep too copiously for Alberta, however, we have to remember it has no gasoline or sales taxes, it has substantially subsidized property taxes and it continues to fund most of its programs from the interest on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and from royalties on petroleum production.

Even those royalties have been reduced by about 20 per cent, according to an announcement made by the Treasurer of that jurisdiction just a few weeks ago. It has problems we do not have. In many respects, its problems had been to our advantage, which is something we have to be aware of, because in our role as citizens of Canada as well as residents of Ontario, from time to time we have to provide the wherewithal for federal programs to assist less fortunate provinces.

I believe the credit rating is solid. The honourable member indicated that I might be going down to New York, sticking out my chest and trying to persuade Standard and Poor's to return it to triple-A. I do not really intend to do that, but we have endeavoured to provide any information that is requested by any of the rating agencies. There was some indication in the Toronto press that it is being further considered. I have no indication of that whatsoever. I think it is up to us to continue to say that our policies and our fiscal stance are established here and not in New York. Frankly, I think our credit rating as it is now is a good, solid one to substantiate our requirements to borrow money as they may occur in the future.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am going to take a couple of minutes. I could not resist the opportunity, under the estimates of the Minister of Treasury and Economics, to raise once again with the Treasurer a matter I raised a little better than a short week ago and that was the funding and the plans for the East End Medical Centre in Hamilton, or St. Joseph's ambulatory care facility, as some are now calling it.

The minister is well aware this is a project that is a desire of the people in the east end of Hamilton and a legitimate one that has been fought for in the past 15 or 20 years. I think it was in 1974 or 1975 that, in response to one of my colleagues, Ian Deans, we had the first committal by a Conservative Minister of Health that the project would go ahead. It has taken an awfully long time and an awful lot of hard work on the part of an awful lot of people, headed up by Dr. Kemp and his committee in Stoney Creek.

We finally seem to be on the way with the facility. Two years ago there was a commitment of $10 million. I think the region or the community is trying to raise a substantial amount of money towards it, but that commitment was finally made. It really had been made back in 1975, but it seemed to be written in stone, so to speak, a couple of years ago.

The community has the site set aside and has a total series of plans somewhere in the ministry. It said the minister's office, but obviously the plans are not in his personal office; at least I doubt they are. The concern in the community is whether the $10-million commitment is still there. There is some concern that somehow or other it may have been rolled into or is supposed to come out of the commitment that was made to St. Joseph's Hospital. It could cause some real concerns in our community if that $10 million is not there as an item for the east end medical facility. That would be a betrayal of a lot of people and a lot of work that has been done on a project that is literally ready to go the minute the plans are back. I hope the Treasurer will take the trouble to check again.

I have followed up with the Treasurer since I asked the question in the House about what is happening in terms of the plans that were passed on to the ministry many weeks ago and in terms of the $10 million. He told me a week ago there was a letter waiting for his signature to come to me, and I have not got that letter yet.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: From the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston)?

Mr. Mackenzie: The Minister of Health. I am concerned about that, but I am concerned specifically about the funding angle of it and whether that $10 million is set aside or is supposed to somehow come out of money that has already been designated for St. Joseph's, which would cause considerable concern in our community. The importance of that facility in the east end of Hamilton -- as the Treasurer knows, we have a number of good hospitals, but every one of them is from the centre west in that city area. There has long been a recognized need for a fairly major facility in the east end.

We are not getting the full hospital facility we would like, but certainly the health centre that has been planned is a darned good first step and the community is solidly behind it. I do not know of a project that has as much community support as that one or as many people who have worked as hard on it. I hope the Treasurer can not only push the Minister of Health a little bit in terms of that response, but also allay my fears and the community's fears that there may be some fooling around with exactly how that $10 million was to come for that east end medical facility.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows there is no fooling around over here. I am not sure what happens over there.

The decision made by the Minister of Health is one he arrives at with the advice he gets from his officials and from the community, but not necessarily from the Treasurer.

There is quite a bit I could say about this if I wanted to unload my views, because I think it is quite important that the Treasurer not try to persuade his colleagues as to specific programs they should put forward. It is my job to allocate the funds that are available with the advice I receive from them and from the officials of the Treasury. They should not feel that somehow or other they have to kowtow to the Treasurer's views. Any time I try to express those views, I can assure the member there is no kowtowing.

It is quite important to understand that the allocation takes place by the Treasury to the ministries and then the ministers have total responsibility, in conjunction with all members of cabinet, to dispense the funds and to approve projects as they see fit.

16:40

To return to the one the member mentioned specifically, the St. Joseph's ambulatory care facility, discussions about this go back even to the days when I was leader of the Liberal Party and I often used to go to meetings in the member's riding, obviously to no avail.

It was certainly raised in those days as something that we as a party should support, and we did, on the basis that the community involvement was so great and that the need in that part of Hamilton and the whole Wentworth area was so obvious. I will undertake to mention it to the Minister of Health, but only as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I wish the member well as he attempts to bring it to the attention of the honourable members of the Legislature and to the Minister of Health specifically.

I wanted to mention the reference to Ian Deans, in reference to living below the poverty level.

Mr. Haggerty: I would leave that one alone.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right, I will not.

Mr. Mackenzie: To finalize my comments, I am not sure I understand what the Treasurer is saying and I am not sure I can just let it lie there.

The point I want to reiterate very clearly is that there is no question whatsoever the people living in the community of east Hamilton and Stoney Creek felt that this issue was put to bed and ready to be finished two years ago under the previous government. They have had no indication that the funding is not there and they have gone ahead with the plans. The community support for the project has, if anything, increased, not decreased, and it would be a tragedy to find that firm commitment of the money was not now there.

I understand the Treasurer is saying it may be part of the job of the Minister of Health, but it seems to me there is a community expectation that is a legitimate one. They thought it was totally settled and to that extent I hope the Treasurer does not feel it is entirely out of his hands. Should the money not be there, there is going to be one awful uproar in the east end of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member's additional comments are helpful. I know it is quite possible for commitments, or what were previously deemed to be commitments, to have been under review by the new government. I will undertake to find out the status of that program and let the member know.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the comments the Treasurer made in his opening statement. He talked about the federal government and its proposed tax reform. I was also interested in his statement about the $50-million bonus given to the Treasurer through the increase in the sales tax revenue. In his opening statement, he talked about the federal government and the new tax reform policies Mr. Wilson may be implementing very shortly.

This follows from the program that the Reagan government initiated in the United States, particularly in regard to tax shelters for financial institutions and earned income credits, and particularly in regard to the working poor, as we put it. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) often gets on to the matter of bread and butter issues, and I think this is one time when I have to agree with him.

I am thinking of my daughter coming home one night and not being too happy. She had bought a pair of shoes for my grandson and at the time the price for those toddlers' shoes was $38, including the provincial sales tax. She was raising Cain with me about it and I said, "If I were you, I would refuse to pay the tax and appeal to the ministry." I think the minister should be looking at some type of tax reform in this area for persons on lower incomes who have to pay sales tax on shoes.

I am a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, and a number of the financial institutions have come before the committee this past month and this past summer. One of the concerns I have when we talk abut tax reform, when the Treasurer is looking at what is taking place in the US and what the Minister of Finance in Ottawa is considering at present, and I hope this government is looking at too, is with the tax shelters that are given to the financial institutions here in Ontario.

I understand that in 1972 the previous government removed taxes from financial institutions. Of the revenues generated from huge profits through pension funds and insurance policies, very little is taken into consideration when it comes to the end product. They pay no financial taxes whatsoever; I should phrase it as corporation taxes.

I know how prudent the minister is. I hope he will take a look at this area, at tax reform so that everybody pays his share of taxes in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will say a word about the sales tax on shoes. Shoes are exempt up to $30. If the honourable member's daughter is buying children's shoes for more than $30, they must be pretty snappy shoes. The only reason I am particularly interested in this is that I now have two grandchildren. I have this terrible compulsion to buy things for them. I got a very neat pair of Kodiak work boots for this little kid who is only a year and a half old. I think they were about $9. They were very snappy. They were made of leather and everything. Since I am sure the complaint the member has raised has come from other members as well, we will have a look at this, but $30 is not a bad cutoff at the present time. The only thing that bothers me is that it has not been raised for a long time.

Mr. Haggerty: The price of shoes has been raised.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I bet the member does not pay more than $30 for his shoes.

The member referred to tax reform, a subject that will involve us in lots of debate in this House as well as with the government of Canada and the other provinces for the next year or so. The initiatives taken by the US government are pushing us to reform. Theirs seem to have been successful and well received, although as they are implemented I believe there will be some difficulties that were not envisaged during the early euphoria. Personal income taxes have been changed from a collection of rates to only two rates, both of which I believe are lower than 30 per cent. The revenue forgone in the American model is largely going to be raised by removing the loopholes or tax preferences in the US corporation income tax.

I am informed by my officials, who are very knowledgeable in these matters, that our corporation income tax, believe it or not, does not have the plethora of preferences and loopholes that have characterized the American corporation income tax program, although obviously there are plenty here as well. I am not prepared to defend them, particularly since the member and others are definitely of the impression that our corporations, many of them very profitable, do not pay any tax at all because of these preferences.

They may be associated with tax losses or economic losses in previous years, which we permit them to carry over to some extent. A good many financial losses are being carried over into the tax situation now, particularly from the downturn in economic prospects and realities in the early part of this decade. I am not sure one can condemn that out of hand. These losses can be carried forward legitimately.

As to reform in our tax base, in our tax spectrum, the Minister of Finance for Canada was quoted as saying in the House of Commons that he hopes working people have more money in their-pockets to take home; i.e., personal income tax will be reduced. There is no doubt in my mind that treasurers and ministers of finance will want to make up that revenue to keep it neutral at least. In the case of the government of Canada, with a deficit now reported at approximately $32 billion, there might be some thought that the government of Canada might try to increase its revenues a bit.

If the government of Canada is thinking of reducing personal income tax and making that money up, and perhaps a bit more, by adding it to the federal sales tax through something called a business transfer tax or something such as that, then we as taxpayers and I as Treasurer have to be particularly alert that we are not replacing one kind of tax with another kind that may be even more regressive.

16:50

At the same time as we are talking about tax reform, we must look at the prospects of corporations paying a proportionately larger share now that the economy is more buoyant, at least in parts of Canada. It has been pointed out in this House repeatedly, and it is obvious from the statistics, that personal income tax is assuming greater and greater proportions in paying the overall costs of government, both provincially and federally, and these are some of the thoughts that will have to be in our minds as we undertake the kind of tax review that will lead to a system that is simpler and fairer and is going to return enough revenue to pay for our programs.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Erie have any more questions or comments?

Mr. Haggerty: When I talked about the financial institutions, I should have used the words "deferred taxes."

Mr. Gregory: I would like to have an opportunity to question the Treasurer on a matter that is of some concern to me, perhaps by past association. The Treasurer might not find it convenient to talk about this at this time, because it is not directly under his ministry as Treasurer, but it is under him as Minister of Revenue. However, the Treasurer will make the final decision on this so I expect he may be willing to talk. If he does not want to do so, I will be glad to defer it until we get some other body.

Do I have the minister totally confused? I am talking about assessment. I purposely do it now because the Treasurer, and only he, is going to make a decision in regard to assessment in Metropolitan Toronto, and he has been doing the negotiations. I expect that since the decision comes under his ministry, he will not have any objection to discussing it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the basis that it might cost additional money somewhere, it could be discussed under the first vote, yes.

Mr. Gregory: As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that there will be a considerable expense, in view of some of the remarks I have read in the newspapers recently. There is a possibility, as the Treasurer has stated, that the present studies -- his answer is the same as mine used to be some four or five years ago -- are now outdated and will have to be redone, which is perfectly true and I totally agree with him. The studies are outdated.

The expense comes in if they have to be redone. There is a considerable amount of money involved, and the Treasurer's decision is required to send all those assessors out marching the streets, counting brass number plates, as they say.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of all people, the member for Mississauga East should know better.

Mr. Gregory: I am just asking. I found it not to be true, but the Treasurer might have found something different since he has been there. In my day as the Minister of Revenue we did not allow that sort of thing. It was well controlled in Mississauga when the assessment was done -- that and the fact that we do not have any brass number plates in Mississauga; we are rather poor out there.

The second part, which does involve financing, has to do with the negotiations the Treasurer has had with the officials of Metropolitan Toronto. I believe there was some discussion of conditions put on the vote that would cause them to decide that perhaps market value assessment under section 63 is not such a bad idea at this time. Some of those conditions involved subsidies from the provincial government so that some older taxpayers and taxpayers in older homes will not be excessively hit by an increase in assessment. I am interested in that. I am not coming after him on that one, because he has not said yes or no. Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not seen anywhere that he has made the statement that there will be no subsidies to Metro Toronto taxpayers to compensate them for excess increases in taxes.

What I am trying to get at is that if the Treasurer did come to the decision, in mulling this matter over, that some subsidies were warranted in Metro Toronto, I wonder whether part of that action could be the awarding of identical subsidies to the 650-odd municipalities that have gone ahead under section 33 without any compensation. Would they be considered in the same light? Or would he make his decision on any subsidies bearing in mind that the 650 municipalities have made their decision without any financial award and, therefore, perhaps Metro Toronto should make its decision in the same way?

I am not trying to play dog in the manger, but fair is fair. A precedent was set in Sudbury. It was altogether different; I recognize that. It was the first region that had been reassessed under section 63, so there was some reason to award extra subsidies. I know he will not do this, but I suppose one could say that Metro Toronto is the second region and, therefore, some subsidies are warranted, as opposed to a minuscule municipality such as Mississauga, which should not warrant any subsidies.

What I am looking for is some statement from the Treasurer that he intends to treat this thing in a way that is fair to all the citizens of Ontario as opposed to only those within the grand citadel of Metro Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I agree with what the member for Mississauga East has said. I do not believe there should be a program of subsidies for one municipality that is not paid fairly and equitably to all, with the single exception of Sudbury, which I have tried to persuade the members of the House to accept as a unique situation. Without spending time on describing the complexities of reassessment, where many municipalities were placed together in one regional municipality, as was the case in Sudbury, where there has been a wide variety of assessments and dislocations over the years, I ask the member to accept that as unique.

I was pleased that the mayor and council of Mississauga went forward with reassessment, asking for provincial assistance but deciding to proceed without it on its merits. The mayor and members of council have expressed some dissatisfaction and concern about some of the mechanics of reassessment, but their understanding of the need for reassessment was and is a good example to other municipalities, particularly the major municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto.

In that regard, I owe Mrs. McCallion one because, along with her council, she took the tough decision to go ahead with it when she might very well have backed off and trod water, as there is a tendency to do when one involves oneself in such a tricky issue as reassessment. I appreciate what she and her council have done, and I personally believe it will work out well for the taxpayers of Mississauga.

The decision taken by the Metro Toronto council was quite a good one. It was general enough and couched in time frames that would not be inconvenient for anyone. In spite of the fact that some provincial politicians are aching to make this a sort of bloodbath issue, it is difficult to determine how even they, in their irrational temerity about re-election, could possibly do this.

The motion passed by the Metro Toronto council said it accepted in principle having it phased in or implemented over a three-year period. They have asked for up-to-date information about assessment, which was the subject of questions in the House today. I am prepared to give it, if it is clearly understood by all the people involved what the ramifications may well be. The ramifications have to do with lot-by-lot projected reassessments and the impact. We feel that until we are prepared to go forward with reassessment without delay, the appeals to the assessment courts might be such that it would be very difficult to achieve fairness and equity in those circumstances.

17:00

I know that officials of the city of Toronto and of some of the other cities have asked for this information. We have provided the general impact studies community by community, region by region and city by city. There is a clear indication of how many taxpayers will have their assessment reduced and how many will have their assessment raised. More people will have a reduction than will have an increase, but the net effect with the application of any reasonable mill rate is that the revenues would remain constant. That is what the reassessment is all about, and those are the ground rules for reassessment.

I read with interest the sections of the resolution passed by the Metro Toronto council when it asked for the right to phase it in and asked for financing to assist particularly low-income people in maintaining their residence without being forced out by increased taxes. I would say to all those interested in this matter that this kind of phasing and special assistance is currently within the power of the municipalities under the Assessment Act and the Municipal Act. They can tax for sufficient funds to ease the impact of new assessments on those people who might otherwise find it difficult to maintain their residence with the increase in tax often associated with very large, older homes sitting on large lots which would command very high market values in the present market.

At least one additional requirement was placed on the resolution by the mayor of the city of Toronto having to do with a review of education costs, basically reflecting the view that the mayor and other members of Toronto council feel the city pays more than its share toward the overall costs of education in Metro Toronto. In my view, that is very much like Ontario objecting to the share of equalization funds we pay to the government of Canada. Obviously, the money we pay as citizens of Canada leaves Ontario, and the government of Canada then redistributes it to recipient provinces -- we had better call them that rather than have-not or something else -- to assist them to provide services at a reasonable tax price, which is required under the Constitution of Canada.

In the same way, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has an overall responsibility to provide equality of educational opportunity, and over the years, the city of Toronto has paid more into the costs of education in the Metro Toronto area than it has received for education within its own borders. I think that matter could be reviewed, but the basic concept of the city of Toronto contributing to overall education is one that was established from the earliest times of the development of Metro Toronto education and I believe must be maintained.

Mr. Davis: Are you going to pay the difference between the tax dollars --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are not paying the difference; no way. We are not paying the difference.

Mr. Davis: You will have to, if you change this process, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We already pay a substantial share of education across the province. We look forward to increasing that, but we feel the shares of educational financing in the Metro Toronto area are paid currently with an understanding that all cities share the overall costs in an equitable way.

We are examining the resolution very carefully, because one area where some assistance might be forthcoming, which is not specifically for Toronto or for Mississauga but for all the taxpayers of the province, could very well be a review of the property tax credit and the payments made to senior citizens to assist them in their property tax payments. These were established some years ago and have not kept pace with inflation. They are very expensive payments. If we were to adjust those for inflation or make any other adjustment, it would provide some additional assistance to the ratepayers in Toronto, Mississauga, South Dumfries or Scarborough on the basis that all citizens would share alike in the enrichment of that program, which was inaugurated eight or nine years ago.

Mr. Gregory: I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you. I fought so hard to get on the floor on this question. Although it seemed to be a little out of order, the Treasurer has acceded to my request, and I hated the thought that I would lose the floor because of a change in chairmen.

I thank the Treasurer for his comments on this. I admit many of the things he has said are parallel to my own comments. The municipalities have always had the right to phase in tax changes, which is not entirely fair. If a new study is done under section 63 of the Assessment Act and some reductions and increases are in order, then to phase in the increases, one must almost phase in the decreases. Really, one would not be fair to that segment of people. Even though that is available to municipalities, I do not think too many municipalities or communities have availed themselves of it. I am not too sure, but I would think the number would be very low.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member means the phase-in.

Mr. Gregory: The phase-in; right. I think most councils recognize that for what it is. Whereas the Treasurer seems to be protecting the people who have increases, he is penalizing those who do not. I do not think it has been used extensively. Perhaps his staff could bring me up to date on that. It has been a while since I was at Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Revenue staff would know.

Mr. Gregory: Yes. The nature of my question was not to have the Treasurer divulge to me his decision, which he obviously has not made, regarding Metro Toronto and its coming on to section 63. He has some soul-searching to do on that one. My question was to determine, if possible, whichever way his decision went, whether it would reflect upon the other municipalities that have not put conditions on their offers.

Those municipalities have requested -- and, as the Treasurer has said, Mayor McCallion has requested, as I think every right-thinking mayor or reeve would. It never hurts to ask, and they know the answer before they ask the question, just as happens in this House. Most of the time we know the answer before we ask the question. Mayor McCallion is no exception to that. She would know what his answer would be, but that would not stop her from asking it. As the Treasurer mentioned, I do not think she reacted too strongly when he said no. I would caution him that she might react rather strongly if his answer were yes to another community. That is what he has to bear in mind.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is a substantial deterrent.

Mr. Gregory: Right. I have heard her speak too; I caution the Treasurer on that. I guess what I am interested in is fair play to the communities. I think of what has happened in Mississauga -- the Treasurer says there have been some objections and some noise because of the mechanics. I suppose because of the nature of the plan it is always going to be that way.

When I was Minister of Revenue, one of the hot ones was a little place called Newcastle. For a small community, an awful lot of noise was generated there. There was going to be a revolution, a tax revolt, the whole thing. If I am not mistaken, that has largely died down, and there is relative calm in the grand metropolis of Newcastle at this time. It was the same in many other communities; in Sault Ste. Marie and parts of Waterloo, for example. I believe the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) got into some kerfuffle about that. There were some objections about the mechanics, but once they are in place, the scheme works rather well. I think it would work rather well in Metropolitan Toronto.

17:10

Let me get back to my question, which concerned fair play. Those communities that opted to go with section 63 on the advice of their Treasurer, their Minister of Revenue -- and I do not mean encouragement, I mean advice -- were given full information and opted to go without any special funds leaking down from the province. Perhaps I should be addressing my remarks to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) as well as to the Treasurer. I hope no decision is made on the Metro situation that would, in effect, penalize the other communities that have not had the benefit of those extra subsidies.

I wish the Treasurer well. I know how he is feeling at this time when we are talking about studies that are locked in the bowels of the Ministry of Revenue that everybody wants to see yet nobody wants to see. I suppose the actual specifics the Treasurer was questioned about today would do some harm if they were divulged. I am not sure where, but I feel the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is not going to make any decision unless it sees those figures. That is a decision the Treasurer will have to face. I am glad he is making it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are taking the passage of the motion very seriously. We think it is couched in terms that are flexible enough to allow me, as Minister of Revenue in charge of assessment, to respond to their requirements and to give them a chance to review what we are doing so that we can support them in every way possible. I have not even received official notification from the metropolitan council that the motion was passed, but I have already had preliminary discussions with the chairman, who I think did a very good job of piloting the concept through the council under very difficult circumstances. Since the executive committee had met a week earlier and recommended that the council not approve it, I was very surprised that after a lengthy discussion it went forward.

I am also aware that at least three members opposite, and perhaps more, have had more experience in dealing with assessment problems than I have. Knowing all three quite well, I would appreciate any advice they can give me in this and similar matters.

By the way, the member mentioned there may be some people here who could give information on assessments. That is not entirely the case. The officials who are very much aware of this situation are with the Ministry of Revenue, but on my right is Brock Smith, the Deputy Minister of Treasury and Economics, and on my left is Larry Leonard, the assistant deputy minister, who was in the Ministry of Revenue until a week or two ago, but in the tax policy or the tax collection area.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a strange day here in the Legislature. We have the critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services involved as the lead for our party on the estimates of the Treasurer and we have the Conservatives debating the Minister of Revenue. It is something we should take in our stride and plunge ahead.

Mr. Chairman: On that subject, that was why I did not bring the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) to order. I remembered the member for Scarborough West had been flexibly stretching his topic.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would love you to explain how. My topic was the Treasurer's role in deciding economic policy in Ontario. Was that not it? I thought that was it. I will send you a copy of Hansard, Mr. Chairman, so you will understand how closely I stuck to the topic at hand.

I want to ask the minister a few questions, since I have an opportunity I normally do not get. I want to know about the technology fund, now that the Treasurer is here. What is it? As I recall, in the budget there was this new program that was going to be announced: $1 billion over 10 years, $100 million this year. Is that true? Is that $100 million in new dollars this year or is that $50 million?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Half of it is new.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Therefore, it is $50 million in new money this year.

It is my understanding that it is overseen by the Premier's Council, that blue-chip business advisory committee we know about.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am on it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is blue chip indeed. That sets a standard by which all others will be judged.

What has been approved? As yet, the only thing I am aware of that has been approved as a project is the somewhat famous software development company of Mr. Schwartz. It has received some money, a small amount, that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) brought to the government's attention on one or two occasions.

Can the Treasurer update us today as to what money has actually been expended, who got the money and how they are using it? For instance, has any money been put into pollution abatement programs or into research and development in that area? Money might go to Ontario Hydro for scrubbers or various ways of cleaning up what it does. What about money for smelter pollution abatement at Inco in Sudbury? Have there been any major grants of money to groups wanting to move in these areas?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To date, the only expenditures approved from the fund are to go to the universities of Ontario to support research and development at our provincially assisted universities. The council is meeting regularly. I have the honour to be a member of the council. It is chaired by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself. It is broadly representative of the manufacturing development community. I never cease to be impressed by the abilities and reputations of the people who make up the council. I can get the names of the council members for the honourable member if he wishes them. It is a blue-ribbon list. He described it that way and I believe that is correct.

They are assisting the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in establishing guidelines for the awards because there are different views as to how the allocation should go. None has been approved, including the payments to the company the member referred to. There is approval but no funds have flowed because before money flows from the fund, MITT has a very rigorous procedure as to the direct use, dollar by dollar.

The answer is that $15 million has been approved and is flowing from the fund to the universities. It is our expectation, and I refer to it in Ontario Finances, that the expenditures from the fund this year will not be quite $100 million, but over a period of 10 years we believe the expenditures will exceed $1 billion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Treasurer said this hoi polloi group is developing guidelines. When will they be available and will they be made public to the Legislature and to the people at large? As to the $15 million for the universities, can he give us some idea what the approved projects are that have not as yet had any money flowed to them?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The information will be made public and reports will be made regularly to the Legislature, presumably through me. The fund is in the Treasury and the council is chaired by the Premier and it gives approvals, but the administration is in MITT. The member should not say we do not know how to organize.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is what any of us would have expected: no money has flowed. A pattern is developing here. There is no doubt about it. I will wait to receive that information from the minister.

On another subject under the same ministry, most members have received letters recently from teachers' federations about the use of the superannuation fund. Sometimes they raise questions about qualifications for it and who gets it and who does not and that sort of thing. I do not want to raise that side of things. As I understand it, this is under negotiation between the Treasurer and the Ontario Teachers' Federation. However, I do want to raise the whole question of the fund itself.

A lot of my teaching friends refer to this as a captive fund, with the Treasurer being the hostage-holder. They have no access to this money, which is quite incredible in terms of the number of dollars. When I look at the numbers set out on page 29 of the briefing book, I see we are talking about many billions of dollars in hand for the Treasurer to deal with. The Treasurer should tell me if I do not understand these figures appropriately, because I am not used to dealing with his ministry, but it looks as if he has borrowed $8.7 billion from that fund up to this point. That seems an incredible amount of money to take from the fund and to be using for social and economic policy in Ontario.

17:20

I notice that the rate of interest payable on these debentures was 13.33 per cent in 1984-85 and 11.45 per cent in 1985-86. It has been my understanding that these kinds of pension funds have often been returning 17 per cent to 25 per cent to people who are managing their own funds in the province.

Can the Treasurer tell me a little bit more about this, which on its face looks like quite a ripoff of the teachers' money, especially because of their lack of control and their lack of payback?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The teachers' superannuation fund is now the major source of borrowing for the province. We borrow in chunks of approximately $250 million about five times a year, but under the law it is our responsibility to borrow all the funds contributed by the teachers and similar contributions made on behalf of the employers by all the taxpayers of Ontario through the Treasurer. The school boards do not make a matching contribution. The government of Ontario, on behalf of all the taxpayers, makes the matching contribution. With teachers' salaries being as they are, among the highest anywhere for teachers, and being relatively buoyant, the fund itself is buoyant.

Up until a few years ago there was an actuarial deficit, but with the buoyancy of salaries and so on, the most recent calculation established an actuarial surplus of $693 million. I just note the cost of the recalculation is estimated at $65 million. Some of these numbers are quite impressive, and I am receiving a good many letters from teachers now asking, "With such a substantial surplus, why can you not improve our pensions'?"

We have a committee that has been ongoing for many months involving the teachers and representatives of the Treasury to work out improvements in the pension plan. The most recent improvement approved by the Legislature was a window for early retirement, so that teachers who are 55 years of age can take an early retirement both for their own benefit and also to make room in the teaching profession for well-qualified new people, who for a long time have not had the usual opportunity to move into the profession.

This was quite an expensive retirement window. I am informed that when all the payouts are made to those people who now have the benefit of early retirement, the fund will have paid something more than $600 million extra. It is difficult to think of that as anything other than a huge amount of money, except that we understand these people will receive their pensions -- we certainly trust and hope, and the statistics indicate, they will receive the pensions -- for a good many years, so the payment is stretched out over the time from age 15 until, I would say euphemistically, they stop receiving them.

The percentage of interest payable is calculated on a formula that we believe is quite generous. The interest payments aye substantial and add considerably to the actuarial surplus in the fund. They are in the range of about 11.45 per cent for 1985-86 and are expected to go down to 10.39 per cent for 1986-87 because of the general reduction in interest rates. I do not call it a low rate of interest, because if you put the money in Canada savings bonds, the interest this year is seven and a half per cent.

Mr. Ashe: It is seven and three quarters per cent.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is seven and three quarters. I do not have any money to invest the way the honourable member does, but I used to have before I took up my new, onerous and expensive responsibilities; let me tell him about it some time.

In return, and this is the important thing, the consolidated revenue fund of Ontario guarantees the benefits. In exchanges with the teachers who deal with pension matters, who are all very capable people and I count them my good friends, I have sometimes facetiously said when they have indicated something less than total satisfaction with the interest rate, that if they are prepared to relieve the Treasury of the responsibility to stand behind the benefits payable, then we will give some consideration to giving them the right to invest the funds as they see fit.

So far, they have been a little reticent about leaping at that facetious proposal. I put that adjective in often enough to protect myself; I hope so. A guaranteed benefit for all the teachers in the province is an extremely valuable guarantee. Many of the teachers, even those who are as young as I am, can remember times when the revenues produced by the independent investment of pension funds have not been in the 20 per cent range, but have sometimes been in the negative per cent range, as the economy lost the buoyancy we have come to expect in this province during the Liberal years, not to put too fine a point on it.

The Ontario municipal employees retirement system has the right to make its own investments. While it does not have a provincial guarantee, it is a pension fund that operates under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer and the Treasury. It has hoc judicious investments that I would not say were at the far end of riskiness. As a matter of fact, they are prohibited from going too far out on the risky scale. They have had a better return in recent years than have the teachers with their investments totally with Ontario.

When I was newly elected and still interested in my previous premiums or moneys paid into the teachers' federation for the teachers' superannuation fund, the interest payable was very low indeed. It was fixed by a formula that had been inherited and had not been changed over the years, I used to make some substantial and impressive speeches about how low those interest rates were and, lo and behold, they now are much higher. I am not sure whether that is cause and effect, but they are higher.

We are currently undertaking quite a substantial review of public sector pension funds. There have been some responses that have been less than enthusiastic to the announcement of this review. It is being undertaken by a public servant still of deputy minister status, Malcolm Rowan, who many people remember as being associated with the work of government for many years gone by. He is chairing a study of public sector pensions with the thought that these revenues might be even better directed than they are now for the benefit of the province as a whole and of the contributors who will eventually receive benefits.

There are those who feel we have some ulterior motive in reviewing these revenues, but we are perfectly pure in our motives. We want to benefit only the people of the province and the eventual beneficiaries of these funds.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member through with that topic?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, I am not, Mr. Chairman. I have one more point on that topic. I understand there are certain benefits to not having the critics here or at least to having the critics show a willingness to share the time and allow others members in. I will do so as soon as I ask a follow-up on the pension question.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

17:30

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister mentioned the Ontario municipal employees retirement system. What is the status of the divestment of South African holdings in relation to OMERS? What is the provincial policy?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The provincial policy is currently under review. There is a good deal to be said about it, of course, but the matter is still under review. I know the honourable member and other members of the House are attentively interested in this, as am I and my colleagues in the government. The member may remember that in the easy policy days, when banning South African wines seemed to be an appropriate response, we did that. Since then we have shown our interest and have had the advantage of hearing Bishop Tutu address the House. That put an additional point on the necessity of having a viable policy.

The problems of total divestiture lie in the legal requirements of fiduciary responsibility. I am sorry about that, but they exist whether one wants them to or not. Under the law, the trustees of pension funds must consider only the benefits of the recipients of pensions rather than international policy relating to apartheid or anything else. It is possible these responsibilities might be relieved by legislation or in some other way such as a general statement of policy on behalf of the government, indicating its desire that reasonable fiduciarily responsible divestiture take place. The ramifications of the policy have meant there have been many hours of informed discussion of this matter, and the government is not yet ready to announce its policy.

In many respects, the government of Canada has moved reasonably well in this connection. Some other jurisdictions including California and, I believe, New Jersey have passed special legislation requiring the divestiture of any of these investments.

We have to remember that some newspapers publishing in Toronto employ people in South Africa. Many companies doing business here and employing many hundreds of people also have responsibilities of a financial nature in South Africa. I am heartened by the fact that some major international firms, even without much urging from government, have divested their holdings. General Motors and IBM are two that come to mind that have recently taken this step. Canadian Textiles of Montreal is a major Canadian firm that has done this.

I have tried to describe in my own halting way some of the difficulties associated with it. I find that the policy area is very complex. Following the ramifications into every area of business, cultural and social exchange is, I submit, extremely difficult.

Mr. Barlow: While the Treasurer still has his pension hat on, I have a couple of questions on pensions. First, as to the OMERS plan, on Friday afternoon I was talking with a representative of the firefighters' union of Cambridge. He was an official of the association. He brought up the subject of the 85 factor for firefighters. I do not know whether the Treasurer is familiar with the firefighters in relation to that. His question to me, to which I undertook to get an answer, was, "What is the status as far as fire departments are concerned with the 85 factor?"

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot give the member the definite answer that I should be able to. I am reasonably familiar with it. The first proposal from OMERS, which includes many police officers as well as firefighters and others, was for a plan that would allow them to retire after 30 years of services. This was modified somewhat by their suggesting we accept an 85 factor; in other words, if age plus years of service totalled 85, it would permit them to retire. We are quite positive about that, but I have been informed it has not been accepted as yet; it is under active consideration.

Mr. Barlow: It has not been accepted by the Treasurer and his officials; is that right?

I think the 30 plus or whatever it is has been accepted by police forces, or it is almost ready to be implemented, but in fire departments it is the 85 factor. It has been under discussion for several years, and I understand the firefighters are most anxious to see it move. As long as I can assure him it is under active discussion and consideration, I shall do that.

The other question also deals with pensions, but this is in the area of private pension plans. I believe the Treasurer discussed private pension plans earlier today. I was out of the chamber or otherwise preoccupied. I understand he said there would be a bill forthcoming in the near future or some time this year. Am I right?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have indicated that on a number of occasions. The original plan was to have a bill available for this fall, which we had hoped to have enacted before the end of the calendar year, but the policy is a little more difficult to arrive at definitely than I had thought. When it is introduced, it will be by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter).

Mr. Barlow: Following the normal procedure, the bill will be brought in by the minister. Will it then go out for public hearings and debate? Is that the expected disposition?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot make any commitment, but if the House wants it to go out, I expect it will go out. When anybody has asked me about it, I have said that when we are talking about a time line for a private pension amendment bill, we might as well tack on the time line for public hearings, because a lot of people will want to discuss it.

Mr. Philip: I have a number of concerns to raise with the Treasurer. Perhaps he can reply to them all at once and then we may have some dialogue on it.

I am always worried about members of the present cabinet and their musings in public. As we have experienced in the past, the musings of certain ministers somehow find their way into legislation or into some action. I can recall one minister who was indiscreet or nearsighted enough to recommend certain ideas that would severely cramp the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. We saw those in the form of proposed legislation that luckily is not going anywhere.

I am concerned about the musings of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. He seems to have found a new soul sister or soul brother, namely, her worship Mayor Hazel McCallion. I am always worried that somebody I have had some respect for, such as the Treasurer, would in any way be considering entering into any kind of close liaison with that great lady, particularly when she is in a liaison, through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, with a family known as the Ghermezians.

17:40

I am sure the Treasurer read in the newspapers and followed with great interest that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations had a trip to Edmonton. I do not begrudge the minister a trip to Edmonton, nor do I begrudge him the opportunity to use his skateboard or whatever it was he used in that great, magnificent wave pool they have in Edmonton. What I do have concerns about, and I am sure the Treasurer has some concerns about, are the minister's public musings, when he talks about the possibility of using $60 million or more of the taxpayers' dollars to finance or subsidize the Ghermezians in setting up this great new Orlando of the north in Mississauga.

I am particularly concerned when I see the shallow rationalizations he gives for such an expenditure. One is that it would create jobs. Any study of the West Edmonton Mall shows that the actual number of new sales jobs created is next to nothing. In fact, the latest studies of the West Edmonton Mall indicate a maximum of 100 new sales jobs were created. The West Edmonton Mall has transferred jobs out of the downtown core of Edmonton. In Toronto, a similar mall would mean jobs transferred to Mississauga from the suburban malls in places such as Etobicoke as well as from the downtown stores. Such a project creates no new wealth but takes money out of the pockets of businessmen and transfers it into the pocket of the Ghermezians and other people who would create this megamall.

It is disconcerting to have the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- who should know better -- try to make the argument, as he has done publicly, that it would be a tourist attraction. If we look at Canada's Wonderland and the studies it has done, we see very few people have come to Toronto to visit Canada's Wonderland. In fact a very small percentage, something under 20 per cent of the patrons of Canada's Wonderland, have come from more than 150 miles away. If we ask those fewer than 20 per cent how many came to Toronto specifically to go to Canada's Wonderland, we would get an infinitesimal number. Canada's Wonderland surveys and its public relations people will tell us exactly that.

Furthermore, if we look at what has happened in the United States to inside recreation facilities, such as those the Ghermezians are proposing in Edmonton or Toronto, we find that the last four major malls have all gone into receivership at considerable cost to the various people they owed money to.

I hear the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations say: "It would create jobs. It would create tourism." I very much doubt that anybody is going to come to Toronto specifically to see a mall in Mississauga. I doubt there will be that many Chicago businessmen who are going to say, "We want to have our convention in Toronto because we want to go to Mississauga to see this great new mall that is being built by the Ghermezians." It simply will not happen.

What we are going to do instead is simply remove jobs from the -- I am sorry, I have lost the Treasurer's attention. I am sure if the member from Mississauga wishes to stand up and speak, he may address the House on this.

What we are talking about is a minimum of two times the amount that was invested in the domed stadium, an investment that would create, as experience has shown in Edmonton and in other cities, a loss of jobs in existing malls, in some cases a transfer of jobs from existing malls and a loss of revenue to small businessmen who cannot afford to relocate in a megamall because of the high rental fees in larger malls. There would be no increase in tourist trade of any account, and there would be a gross expenditure of taxpayers' money.

I find it somewhat ironic that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can go around musing about this, while at the same time this government has said to municipalities through legislation: "You cannot go and play the game of offering goodies, financial discounts, to attract industry into your community. You cannot use taxpayers' money to do this kind of thing. However, as the provincial government, we are considering doing it." This is the kind of fiscal irresponsibility that makes one more than a little anxious.

I also get a little anxious when I look at some of the other fiscal programs of this government. If we look, as the standing committee on public accounts has done, at the sale or attempted sale of crown corporations, we see that there is absolutely no planning to it. There are no planning reasons as to why certain crown corporations are being sold off. Looking at the Urban Transportation Development Corp. , over and over again we asked the officials of UTDC and the officials of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, "What was the transportation strategy in the sale of this company'?" We found none.

Instead, it was the Treasurer saying: "Gosh, it is a nifty idea. Our brother Mulroney is doing it. He is selling off crown corporations. It seems like a good way to raise revenue. We will pick a bright public servant, one of the brightest and most articulate we can find, and we will tell him to make a list of all crown corporations. Then we will say, `Which ones are we going to sell off'?'"

The last one I expected the Treasurer to be able to sell off was Minaki Lodge; I gather that perhaps he is not selling it off but is giving it away. With that one, there may be some reason. It was the Provincial Auditor in 1977 or 1978 -- I forget the year -- who came out with a recommendation to the then government that said: "For heaven's sakes, cut your losses. It is never going to fly. You are always going to lose money on it." Finally, this Treasurer has caught up to that.

What happens when it comes to UTDC? It seems we are virtually paying Lavalin to take a viable company that was getting contracts and that had proved itself, notwithstanding the negative comments of Mr. Cunningham, the former Liberal transportation critic. It was proving itself and did prove itself in its trial run at the exhibition in Vancouver this year.

We have a lack of any policy directive. "Let us sell off a bunch of crown corporations. Let us see which ones somebody will buy or we can give away and let us proceed along with that." That has nothing to do with the priorities that I think are important: What kind of jobs are going to be created, and where does this policy fit into an overall policy of this ministry and of this government?

17:50

Let me deal with another issue in which, as our party's critic on government spending, I was more recently involved. This morning, before the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, I represented a young man who had spent a considerable amount of time in hospital at an unreasonable cost to the taxpayers through the Ontario health insurance plan. One of the things he was talking about was that, finally, his union was able to persuade his company that it was unreasonable for workers such as himself to be engaged in the type of movement that caused his original injury. This man has been off work since 1983.

One of the things members of this party did during the spring and summer months was to go around the province to look at exactly how money was being spent on accident prevention. One of the organizations we constantly heard criticism of was the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. On our motion in the standing committee on public accounts, the Provincial Auditor looked at the IAPA.

The Treasurer will be aware that this organization, which has expenditures totalling more than $13 million, was found deficient with respect to travelling and hospitality expenses, purchasing procedures, controls over movable assets, inventory of literature and so on and on. I was embarrassed for the president, a man who comes from industry and who was undoubtedly giving freely of his time because he genuinely believes it is important to prevent accidents in the work place. But he was on top of this big machine that had taken over, and this big machine had a life of its own; that life was not necessarily in the interests of either the taxpayers or the injured workers.

On Thursday in the public accounts committee, we will have a 20-part motion dealing with the problems of the IAPA. I will not go through each of the 20 recommendations, but I suggest to the Treasurer, as somebody who is concerned about how money is being wasted in this province, that he should read that motion seriously and consult with his colleagues before they go into that committee.

Were the 20 recommendations implemented, not only would they result in a saving of the taxpayers' money through OHIP, hospitalization and indirectly through premiums that are paid through workers' compensation, but also they would literally save ordinary people's lives. I hope the Treasurer will address himself to some of the concerns I have raised and in particular will look at our motion concerning the IAPA and its $13 million in expenditures, which does not seem to be very well spent at this time.

I would love to talk about other expenditures, but I see the clock is running on.

Regarding golden handshakes, we have dealt with a few of those in the public accounts committee, and we will be dealing with a platinum handshake soon. No doubt I will have an opportunity, at least in the case of the latter, to question the Treasurer if he is called or wishes to appear before that committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to comment on a couple of things the honourable member was referring to.

When my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was talking about the Ghermezian proposal for Mississauga, he was not making any commitment that I could discern. I understand he went to the West Edmonton Mall to look it over, was well received by Nader and his brothers and went down in the submarine. Unfortunately, the roller-coaster was not working very well that day, but he was very impressed, as is everyone who has been there.

Although I have been in Edmonton a couple of times, I have never had the opportunity to go to the West Edmonton Mall. I have been so busy with these conferences that there is no time to relax.

Mr. Breaugh: What a shame. It is the strain of public office. We should help the Treasurer out.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just a hamburger at the end of the day and fall into bed; that is about it. I have not had a chance to see the West Edmonton Mall, but I am informed by people whose sensitivity and appreciation of these matters are well known that it is a remarkable place indeed.

The government of Ontario certainly does not want to turn away anyone who wants to make investments here. As far as I know, no one in the government, including the minister referred to by the member, has given anything but the kind of encouragement we would give any investor who would like to come here and share in the buoyancy of our economy and the goodwill of our people. We would think of the honourable member's words very carefully if we were to contemplate anything other than that.

We want to encourage initiatives that will improve our employment prospects, particularly for young people, and add to our burgeoning economy. Whether the Ghermezians' proposal would do that remains to be seen. They have the right, as does any other developer, to come down here and do the best they can, both to persuade government to be enthusiastic about the proposal and to take their chances in the retail marketplace of Ontario, which is a very competitive one.

The member also referred to some other matters that the public accounts committee is reviewing, including the safety organization. I talked to some of my colleagues on the committee, and they are quite concerned about it as well. I am sure the 20-point program the member is putting before the committee will have the benefit of everybody's careful review, and we will see what kind of report comes back to the House.

I can hardly wait for my chance to go to the committee and discuss the retirement arrangements with the former Clerk of the Legislature. It is a matter of interest and concern to lots of people.

Mr. Philip: If the government has an economic strategy, why is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations spouting off and in fact offering in a public way in the newspapers a large amount of the taxpayers' money to the Ghermezians? If the government does not want to have an affair, why create the flirtation? It is simply nonsense.

The minister has thrown a major panic into the employees of a large number of corporations, be they Cadillac Fairview, Eaton's or any of the other groups of companies that had no subsidies from the government. They are saying, "Here we are having the Ghermezians, outsiders, coming into this province who would be competitors to us, and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is saying publicly in the newspapers and on the airwaves, `Make us an offer and perhaps we can come up with a large amount of money.'"

The $60 million did not come out of the air; it came out of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The hour-long visit with the Premier did not come out of the air. It was a real visit the Ghermezians had with the Premier, as I understand it. If the government is not interested in playing ball with these guys, why is it wasting time doing it this way?

If the Ghermezians want to come in and build a mall with their own money, not with $60 million of the taxpayers' money, let them do it. Let them take their chances against Cadillac Fairview and all the other companies operating here in Ontario, but to give them a competitive edge with the taxpayers' money is simply irresponsible. If the Treasurer does not intend to do that, why does he not have the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations or the Premier stand up in this House and say once and for all, clearly and definitively, "There is no tax money for that purpose"?

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

3 novembre 1986