Journal des débats 1988-avril-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 11th report of the Commission on Election Finances respecting the indemnities and allowances of the members of the Legislative Assembly. For the information of the members, I have placed copies of this report inside their desks.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MARIA OCIEPKA

Mr. Allen: Yesterday, here at the Legislature, an organization which calls itself LIFT, Low Income Families Together, held a day-long vigil in memory of Maria Ociepka.

Maria Ociepka died suddenly at age 28 on September 12, 1985, but in her few years as a welfare activist she made an indelible mark and left a memory which burns bright. She founded the province-wide Mothers’ Action Group in 1981 to give a voice to her moms, as she called them -- sole-support mothers -- and to the poor in general.

As co-ordinator of the Mothers’ Action Group, she developed the first formal alliance between social service workers and the clients they serve. A single mother herself, she was poor all her life. She was fearless in defence of her moms as she fought the bureaucratic barriers they had to overcome, but she was respected at every level of government because she did her research well. She knew policies, she knew legislation and regulations forward and backwards, and she had a penetrating analysis of the poverty system.

If she cared for any more than the moms, it was the kids who were trapped in poverty, whose dreams and hopes would be cut short by a society whose wealth could wipe out their poverty if it but cared enough. Maria Ociepka gave new hope to those who were too beaten down to care. Like her friends in vigil yesterday, we too would do well to pause for a few moments to remember her.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Cousens: I would like to make a statement on the housing problem and the cost to tenants of the rent review backlog. While taxpayers’ dollars allocated for rent review have almost doubled from 1986 to 1987, the backlog of applications for rent review has risen from 23,000 to 26,000, according to Michael Melling, chairman of the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations. Based on the government’s own estimates, at least $28 million will be spent on rent review this year. This amount is almost double what it spent in 1986-87.

With the $28-million rent review budget and at least 26,000 rent review applicants on indefinite hold, the cost to these tenants is an incredible $1,076 each. Never mind tenant frustrations over the red tape associated with the Liberal government’s rent review program, the cost of this horrendous mismanagement is just another sad example of the government’s inability to deliver on commitments it has made both to tenants and to landlords in this province.

Clearly, it is time for the Liberal government to stand up and take note of the ineffectiveness of continually filling the pockets of bureaucrats at such an enormous cost to tenants.

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Adams: It has been suggested in this House that the 1996 Olympics should be held in Greece. This is sentimental rubbish. If Greece had been really keen on the Olympics, she would not have let them lapse 2,000 years ago. Now, two millennia later, with $2 billion from the European Community, Greece is being considered again.

The modern Olympics are a very high-powered, complex affair. I believe the International Olympic Committee should select the site solely on the basis of the merits of the bids. The games should go to the most suitable and deserving host, and Ontario is the most suitable and deserving host.

We are suitable because we have the administrative expertise and the sports know-how. We have facilities here in Toronto and in many communities across this province. We are a secure, multicultural society ready and able to receive athletes from every country in the world. We are the most deserving host because Canada and Ontario have unequalled commitments to fitness and sports. Our own grass-roots Ontario games program involves more sports than the Olympics themselves.

I say to my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert), 1996 would be ideal from the point of view of the provincial economy. We want an Ontario-wide Olympics, and let us say for now, in 1996 or never.

“THE EMPEROR’S EAR”

Mr. Farnan: The Emperor’s Ear:

The emperor presided over a very large court. The poor emperor, he had too many courtiers and couldn’t remember all their names. So, to avoid embarrassment, he decided to confide in only three of them. Of course, the other courtiers were jealous, but still they pampered the emperor. They beamed in his presence. They even wore the red garb favoured by the emperor. They applauded excessively the emperor’s every trivial utterance.

But what could the emperor do? He only had two ears and three advisers. Every time one of the emperor’s advisers finished briefing the emperor, the third was poised and ready to take his place. Little wonder the courtiers began to whisper secretly among themselves: “I do wish the emperor would listen to us once in a while. I thought there was more to being a courtier than being dressed up in red. It is difficult to applaud the emperor when he is wrong.”

But it was even more frustrating for the people of the kingdom, for they too wanted the emperor to listen to them. Alas, the emperor only had two ears and three advisers, and if the emperor couldn’t listen to his many courtiers who were close by, how could he possibly listen to his people who were out working in the fields? After all, the emperor only has two ears and three advisers. Poor emperor.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: Yesterday I listened carefully to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) when he spoke, rather eloquently, of the three priorities of his budget. The first priority was an allocation of “considerably more resources into skills development.”

I have been a critic for only a few short days and I have looked at the budget figures, and they tell me a very different story. During the last two years, the budget has been underspent by the Ministry of Skills Development. In 1986-87, underspending by the ministry was $55 million and last year underspending was a whopping $77 million. For the last two years, budgetary allocation for the ministry decreased by $1 million last year and then was slashed by a further $47 million for this year.

1340

This tells me two things. First, the programs are not working. What little spending there is is clearly directed towards advertising and publications such as these. This means an underspending and a shortchanging of the very programs and the very people the ministry is there to help, including the young people and the older workers of Ontario, those who really need the training and the retraining.

Interjections.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am glad the Treasurer is listening.

Second, this shows me that the government is not interested in correcting the problems of mismanagement and lack of planning. We really wish the Treasurer would do so, especially in this ministry.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Black: I hold in my hand today a news release from the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus. It has a headline which states, “Black Opposed to Sunday Shopping.” How did the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus come by this startling piece of information? They came by it by way of an anonymous phone call -- this, the party of Leslie Frost, of Bill Davis, of Frank Miller. My, how the mighty have fallen.

But the crucial question is not the question of the ethics of the Progressive Conservative Party; the crucial question is the one posed by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt). I quote: “The test, says Andy Brandt, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, is whether or not Mr. Black will stand up for his beliefs.”

I can appreciate that the honourable member is probably losing sleep at night worrying about that question and I want to reassure him. I want the member for Sarnia to know that Mr. Black will indeed stand up for his beliefs. I want to tell him how I am going to vote on the issue of shopping on Sunday. I am going to vote in favour of the legislation because I believe it is good legislation, because I believe it is fair legislation and because I believe it is in the best interests of my constituents and all the people who live in this province.

Furthermore, I suggest that the member for Sarnia knows the same thing. He knows very well that this legislation will not damage the fabric of this province.

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

An hon. member: Seventeen seconds -- go.

Mr. Speaker: Pretty short for the member for Oshawa.

OSHAWA KIWANIS HOCKEY CLUB

Mr. Breaugh: I know that members have been waiting for the results of the Air Canada Midget hockey tournament. They will be happy to know that Kevin Butt from the Oshawa Kiwanis Midgets was named the outstanding goaltender. We won 78 games this year. We just lost a few when we should not have.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL / CONSEIL DES ARTS DE L’ONTARIO

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Twenty-five years ago today, this House approved the legislation establishing the Ontario Arts Council. Since 1963, the council has sparked the explosive development of the arts in Ontario. Its impact has had a profound effect, not only in Ontario but also in other provinces and on our nation as a whole.

Je voudrais faire l’éloge du Conseil des arts de l’Ontario, de même que celui de tous ceux qui ont oeuvré au sein du Conseil pendant ces 25 dernières années. De nombreux présidents, directeurs exécutifs et membres fidèles méritent d’être loués pour leur dévouement et leur service exemplaire.

The Ontario Arts Council was established to promote the study, enjoyment and production of works in the arts. From 1963 through 1988, the council has awarded more than 30,000 grants. In doing so, it has nurtured creativity and talent throughout our province. Everyone present can take pride in this achievement.

The number and quality of arts organizations has grown steadily over the years. Let me give members some examples. In 1963, Ontario was home to one professional symphony, one opera company, four theatres and about a dozen other arts organizations. Today the Ontario Arts Council provides ongoing support to 45 orchestras, 51 opera and theatre companies, eight of which are francophone, and nearly 300 additional arts organizations.

I am proud that my ministry reaches out to communities across the province in order to spark the creation, preservation and enjoyment of Canadian culture. Two council innovations which extend the arts to communities are Contact and its francophone version, Contact Ontarois. These programs bring together touring artists and community sponsors. Over the years, Canada Council and other provinces have followed Ontario’s lead and established similar programs.

The council has also expanded its programs to reach our youth. The arts education office, for example, has established programs which enable elementary and secondary school students to experience the arts at first hand. Other provinces have followed suit.

Economically speaking, the arts industry means big business for Ontario. For example, over 182,000 people are employed in arts related positions in this province. When compared to Canada’s largest manufacturing industries, Ontario’s arts industry ranks fourth in terms of employment, and revenue generated by the provincial arts industry is well over $4 billion annually.

If free trade with the United States is implemented, the preservation of our Canadian culture will take on even greater importance. We can all take pride in the fact that the Ontario Arts Council has created programs which serve to strengthen our cultural sovereignty as well as our Canadian identity.

I am pleased to note that the council’s five-year strategic plan is very impressive. Entitled Moving Forward, the plan includes four goals: artistic development, audience and community development, arts research and promotion and financial stabilization and growth for the arts in Ontario. This plan provides a valuable framework for developing the arts in Ontario during the next decade.

Je voudrais souligner que ce plan est plus qu’un simple projet. C’est un schéma directeur de tout le développement futur du domaine des arts au Canada. En célébrant le 25e anniversaire du Conseil des arts de l’Ontario, nous reconnaissons le rôle essentiel des arts dans notre société.

Before closing, I want to mention two relevant anniversary initiatives. First, the Ontario Arts Council and my ministry have co-produced a video documentary celebrating the growth of the arts in Ontario. Second, the council will organize a Canada Day salute to the arts at Queen’s Park.

I would like the members to join with me in saluting the 25th anniversary of the Ontario Arts Council and would like to introduce the director of the Ontario Arts Council, Chris Wootten, in the gallery, Nalini Stewart, vice-president, and Sonja Koerner, president. Would you join me in welcoming them.

ONTARIO CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am very pleased to announce to the Legislature today the establishment of the Ontario Centre of International Business at three of the province’s universities.

An independent advisory panel has recommended the centre should be awarded jointly to York University, the University of Toronto and Wilfrid Laurier University, and I have accepted the panel’s advice. The headquarters of the centre will be located at York University.

The institutions will share a provincial grant of $6 million over five years. At the end of that period, the centre should be self-sufficient. The government first announced its intention to establish the centre in last spring’s throne speech. All Ontario universities were invited to submit proposals, and four, from a total of 12 institutions, were received. They were reviewed by an advisory panel of experts chaired by Frank Petrie, president of the Canadian Export Association.

The recommendation, combining two proposals, will, I believe, result in a comprehensive centre that builds on the strength of the three institutions.

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will work closely with the centre to examine ways in which the government can help improve our competitive position.

Participation by the private sector will be essential to the centre’s success. In that context, I am pleased to advise the Legislature that several multinational firms have already expressed interest in having their managers attend courses at the centre. Provincial and national markets have become increasingly global in recent years. Large and small businesses must learn to compete internationally.

I am confident the Ontario Centre of International Business will be an important catalyst in developing the skills required to meet these new demands.

1350

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will be introducing the Children’s Law Reform Amendment Act, 1988. The breakdown of a marriage or a relationship is, by itself, a difficult situation. Unfortunately, there are times when the parties to a marriage or a relationship decide they will use their children to continue a battle which should be over. All of us, I am certain, agree that children in this province should never be used as pawns, and this bill underlines that principle.

We want parents to realize, as I believe the courts have begun to realize, that access orders are designed to benefit the child, to ensure as much as possible that children have the opportunity to know and to learn from both of their parents. However, we also recognize that there are times when access can be legitimately denied, either by the court or, in exceptional cases, by the parent who has custody of the child.

Because of the importance of the bill, I would like to take a moment to highlight some aspects of it. The primary purpose of the bill is to provide effective enforcement of access orders issued by the courts of our province. It will also cover cases where access arrangements are contained in a separation agreement that has been filed with the court. The amendments will provide for an expedited hearing whenever there is an allegation that access has been restricted for improper or unlawful reasons. This hearing will allow the courts to act quickly in such cases, within 10 days of the application being served. Thus, we hope to avoid situations where there is a continuing improper denial of access because an application is winding its way through the process.

As I said earlier, the best interests of the child or children are paramount. Therefore, the legislation will recognize that there are times when access may legitimately be denied. For example, if the parent with custody has reasonable grounds to believe the child may suffer physical or emotional harm, he or she will have the right to deny access, subject always, of course, to review by the courts.

In cases where there is a denial, the parent who is denied access will be able to use the enforcement mechanism I have described to have the court determine if the denial was appropriate or lawful. The bill will give the courts various options to remedy an improper or unlawful denial. That in itself is a major improvement in our system. At the moment, a court dealing with the wrongful denial of access has but one option: finding the custodial parent to be in contempt of court. Such a finding could result in a fine or a jail term, and neither, in my view and, I believe, in the view of honourable members, is an appropriate remedy in these cases.

We also want to avoid the situation where wrongful denial of access has led to courts suspending the requirement for child support payments, or to parents simply refusing to pay support until access is granted. This type of order hurts the child in two ways. It reduces his or her right to see the noncustodial parent and it can also lead to situations where the child suffers because support payments have been ended because of the wrongful denial of access. Once this bill is passed, the courts will have a more equitable and, I believe, a more effective remedy for the right cases.

Where access has been improperly denied, the court will be able to order it to be granted at another time. This will ensure that the child’s right to see the noncustodial parent is fully exercised. The courts will also be able to order, if the parties agree, that there be a mediation process, which, hopefully, will deal with the root cause of the parents’ difficulties. These remedies will be available when the courts conclude that they are in the child’s best interest.

The government believes it is also important in a bill such as this to include statements of certain principles. The most important one to be added to the bill is that parents shall encourage and support the child’s continuing relationship with both parents.

While the enforcement mechanism I have described will apply to existing access orders or agreements, the bill will also provide the courts with some guidance as to issues which must be considered when determining what sort of access to grant in new orders or in making variances to existing orders. Among the things to be considered are the wishes of the child, the parents’ plans for the care and upbringing of the child and, perhaps most important, the ability of the parties to act as parents.

Members will recall that a similar bill was introduced by the government last year. A number of groups and individuals, including members on all sides of this House, have commented on that bill. The legislation to be introduced today reflects many of the concerns that were brought to our attention, particularly by making specific reference to problems of past domestic violence. We have, I believe, a fair bill and one which will avoid some of the inequities that are present in the current situation. We have a bill that recognizes and supports the right of the child to access.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Hon. Mr. Ward: On December 16, 1987, I introduced Bill 76, an act to replace our system of school trustee distribution, currently based on property assessment, with one that is based on population.

At that time, it was not possible to introduce one bill that included all large school boards in the province. Rather, in keeping with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Trustee Distribution, the public school boards in Metropolitan Toronto were temporarily excluded from the provisions of Bill 76. This was done so that these boards might be given an opportunity to provide input on the ways in which the principles of the joint committee’s report could be applied to the special complexities of the two-tier system of governance in Metropolitan Toronto.

In the time that has elapsed since I introduced Bill 76, I have received the input of the public boards of Metro Toronto. Rather than introduce a new bill to apply to those boards alone, I have decided to withdraw Bill 76 and in its place introduce a new bill that includes provision for trustee distribution for all school boards in Ontario, including those in Metropolitan Toronto. I believe it has been possible to respond positively to the requests made by the Metropolitan Toronto boards, recognizing the special circumstances of their two-tier governance, while still respecting the principles of Bill 76.

Since last December, I have also received several useful comments on our proposed legislation from provincial trustee associations and others in the educational community. I have listened to these concerns and I am glad to say that in introducing this new bill today, we are including several improvements that will provide more flexibility to boards in the matter of board size and in the distribution of trustees.

Specifically, a board will have the option, by a three-quarters vote, to increase or decrease the size of the board by one or two trustees. This flexibility responds to the concerns expressed by several boards, especially those that operate on ward systems, as do the boards of Metropolitan Toronto.

As well, a board may designate certain municipalities as low population areas requiring special consideration in the matter of the distribution of trustees. An electoral group may, by a three-quarters vote, direct an alternative distribution of its members to increase representation in designated areas. I believe this will address a number of concerns expressed by boards that have jurisdiction over a mix of rural and urban areas.

With this new bill, Ontario school boards will have their size and distribution of trustees determined by population. It is a progressive piece of legislation which replaces a system of representation based on wealth with one based on population.

CDC LIFE SCIENCES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to inform the Legislature of the contents of a telex which I will be sending today to the Honourable Robert de Cotret, the federal Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

As the members may be aware, the Institut Mérieux of France has launched a bid to acquire a significant interest in CDC Life Sciences.

CDC Life Sciences is a Canadian-based company whose wholly owned subsidiary, Connaught Laboratories Ltd., is a major supplier of vaccines, insulin, human blood plasma fractions and diagnostics. Bio Research Laboratories Ltd., another wholly owned subsidiary of CDC Life Sciences, offers scientific research services for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Nordic Laboratories, of which CDC Life Sciences owns 35.4 per cent, produces and markets prescription drugs in Canada.

Mérieux is a major competitor of Connaught Laboratories. CDC Life Sciences plays a vital role in the Canadian biotechnology and pharmaceutical community.

The government of Ontario is concerned that a significant change in the ownership of CDC Life Sciences raises serious questions around three issues: (1) compliance with the intentions of the Investment Canada Act; (2) the continuation of research and development and the production of health products in Canada; and (3) the impact on competitive conditions in the marketplace for these essential health products.

It is for this reason that I will be sending a telex to the federal minister responsible for Investment Canada, the Honourable Robert de Cotret, requesting that Investment Canada actively review all aspects of this proposed transaction. We want to ensure that whatever the outcome of the bid, CDC Life Sciences continues to play an active and integral role in Ontario’s and Canada’s business, scientific and health care communities.

1400

RESPONSES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond both to the statement just made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and to the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

CDC LIFE SCIENCES

Mr. B. Rae: If I could comment briefly on the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I think all on this side would simply say it is not clear at this point whether the response coming from the government of Ontario is at all adequate in the face of yet another example of the kind of corporate cannibalism which has passed as economic activity for the past several years.

It is disturbing, to say the very least, that a company and a group of companies that have been at the very forefront of research and development, and scientific activity in relationship to our universities, and in relationship, of course, to a very historic discovery at the University of Toronto some 65 years ago, would now be up on the auction block and subject to foreign control.

To see that happening with no response from the government of Canada and with a simple telex from the government of Ontario is disturbing, to say the very least. It is an issue, obviously, that we are going to be continuing to study and to raise on behalf of the province to make sure that the technology, the capacity and our historical commitment to research and development in this province are nurtured and maintained and not simply sold off to the highest bidder.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr. B. Rae: With respect to the statement made by the Attorney General, I do want to make a couple of comments but they will by no means be definitive. I know you will be sorry to hear that, sir. Given the fact that I have not seen the legislation but have only seen a brief presented to me by the Attorney General, it makes it difficult.

I want to say to the Attorney General, from what I gather, he has partially responded, at any rate, to some conversations and representations I have made with respect to the first draft of the bill. I must confess to being continually troubled by an effort on his part to legislate reasonableness in this very difficult question of access.

I think all of us have had experience through our own personal lives in one shape, way, form or another, either as members or whatever it may be, in wrestling with this very difficult question. I think all of us recognize that there are emotions involved, that there are family circumstances involved and that there are family histories involved that sometimes courts simply cannot understand or appreciate.

Therefore, while it is important that we ensure that both parents have reasonable access, part of what I hear coming from those who argue strongly in favour of the legislation the Attorney General has put forward is a sense that somehow a simple declaration by the courts can guarantee something called reasonableness. I do not think we can guarantee that.

I hope very much that the Attorney General will agree that this bill is something that should be discussed widely in the House and should be referred to committee. It is certainly something that should be discussed with a great many people and parents who are affected by this legislation. The objective of doing more for the rights of the child is an objective we all share.

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

Mr. Allen: I want simply to say that this party also takes pride in the achievement of the Ontario Arts Council and that we recognize the contribution it makes to our province. We notice that the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) believes that its five-year plan is impressive. We hope she has already also noticed that the director hopes for a doubling of funding over that period of time, I believe, but she did not commit herself to that. I hope she will.

ONTARIO CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Briefly, on two statements, the first by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), I think it is clear that this either came directly off a teleprompter or it is just trying to prove the adage that the larger and bolder the type, the less content there is in the statement.

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The second response is to the statement of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), in which he is now adding to the clutch of bills which have been brought forward in terms of trying to change our electoral system for the municipalities. I wonder how many more we have to see. I am glad he has withdrawn the several pounds of amendments he brought in just recently to Bill 76, but I really wonder perhaps, with all this messing around and whatever responses he may have in the future, whether he might rethink whether this should be taking place this year.

Obviously, he is still not talking about any right of appeal. In the city of Toronto specifically, we know there is gerrymandering going on, which people in Toronto will not have a right to appeal, at least unless he changes the legislation in that fashion as well. I wait to see his next series of amendments or new bills.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What would have happened if we had gone ahead with it when you wanted us to?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Look what a mess you would be in now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Scarborough West and the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to respond to the recent example by the Minister of Education of planning initiatives in a legislative vein. It is interesting to note it was his ministry that raised the issue of changes in trustee representation, not the trustees. He invited them all in for comment. He listened to them. Then he tabled a bill without incorporating their recommendations.

He also ignored its impact on Metropolitan Toronto. The trustees complained about being overlooked. So then he listened to them again and made a few amendments. He threw that into the pot. The government then withdraws its bill today and introduces a new bill. Basically, the minister has got some of the points the trustees warned him about over a year ago. It is a lot of selective listening.

The approach of the minister in this matter does not bode well for something as significant and important as the democratic processes for municipal elections. We ask him to take note of the recommendations made to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) when his task force reported directly that no amendments should be made to the electoral process after January 1 of an election year.

The minister’s approach in this matter has been like trying to bake a cake and making up the recipe as he goes along. Bill 76 was half-baked. We got a new bill and we are not sure if it is wholly baked. It still may be half-baked for Toronto representation. We expect something better from him in this regard.

ONTARIO CENTRE OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

Mr. Jackson: With regard to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), we applaud this initiative. We believe it will assist our university students and graduates to take better and fuller advantage of the obvious benefits from a free trade agreement and the interest the world has in that subsequent agreement, but it is interesting that the minister is putting yet another program at York University, which has one of the most acute accommodation problems in all of Ontario.

She is forcing the university to apply for these minimal dollars in target funding. As the minister knows, York is in a unique situation in using 90-cent dollars for grant purposes. In fact, they are penalized when they increase their enrolment. There are severe problems. At Wilfrid Laurier University, the cutoff this year is going to be an 82.5 per cent average. Students in droves are contacting our offices; they cannot get into that university.

When is the minister going to come out with a long-term plan for our universities and plan them instead of filling them with political, rhetorical statements in order to gain headlines and not take care of the long-term interests of our post-secondary institutions in this province?

ONTARIO ARTS COUNCIL

Mrs. Marland: Our caucus too joins the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) in congratulating the Ontario Arts Council on its silver anniversary. We express particularly our appreciation and gratitude to all the volunteers who work as part of the outflow from that organization We also take great pride in the fact that we did initiate the Ontario Arts Council in 1963, obviously another great move by the Progressive Conservative government.

We do wish, however, that today had been a real celebration for the arts council, by this government’s perhaps supporting the request for the particular area of funding that this organization is asking for, other than making a video and having a one-day salute. We feel this ministry should join with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to encourage the tremendous cottage industry now developing and growing around Ontario in the arts community. The other provinces in Canada do this in a very real and tangible way. It is the leading edge of creativity. It is an area within our province that needs recognition by funding by the government and co-ordination between those two ministries. We look forward to that happening.

1410

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr. Cousens: I would like to comment on the announcement by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). The Attorney General has taken the spirit and the idea of Terry O’Connor, formerly MPP for Oakville, who introduced a private member’s bill in this House a couple of years ago, and which is now in Orders and Notices in my name under Bill 45, which will do a great deal to improve access of children.

I commend the Attorney General for responding to these concerns that deal with custody, even if it is somewhat belatedly, and I suggest that he name the bill somewhat differently than he has suggested, that he call it the Terry O’Connor bill of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Indeed, this is the spirit that Terry had when he brought forward that bill in the first place. We know it is important that we do more in this Legislature to protect the rights of children. Indeed, that is part of the reason we were in this House talking about the problems of custody and some of the other things.

We are supportive of the intent of the bill. Let us hope it does all that Terry’s did.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) I would like to address my questions to the Premier, who is also acting as the chairman of the so-called health council.

I wonder if the Premier could explain to the House how it is possible, at a time when Ontario’s budget for health care is projected to increase by some 10 per cent -- up $1.2 billion to $12.7 billion -- that, to give him but one example, Princess Margaret Hospital, which as the Premier will know is the leading cancer hospital in the province, would recently have announced that it is having to close 10 of its 202 beds. Can the Premier explain how it is possible for that to happen?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I personally do not know the details of the budget of Princess Margaret and that particular situation. My honourable friend does; I am sure the honourable minister does, and I can have her respond to the honourable member.

With respect to the general budgetary question of health financing, I am sure the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) would be delighted to help him out.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier is the chairman of a so-called health council. He announced it with much panoply in the House and told us how much it was of concern to him. Frankly, I am astonished that he would not be aware that the reason the closure of these beds is taking place is that the Princess Margaret Hospital is short some 25 nurses and cannot find the nurses anywhere. I would have thought the fact of the nursing shortage would be something that would be on the front of the pile on the Premier’s desk and not somewhere simply attached to the news releases on a good day.

I wonder if the Premier could comment on this correspondence which I have received from the nurses’ association at the Wellesley Hospital, which has said as follows:

“The operating room, the recovery room and the critical care areas are especially short-staffed. At one point, our operating room was short 19 nurses out of 48. As a result, operating-room time, already less than adequate from the surgeons’ point of view, has been restricted again. In an effort to compensate for this, many surgeons are operating in the middle of the night and through the weekend, which means, of course, that the already very limited number of operating-room, recovery-room and intensive care nurses available must also work these hours.”

The Premier must be aware of a situation which is critical in our hospitals today. Can he explain why, when his budget for health care has increased by some 10 per cent, we have such a chaotic situation today in so many of our hospitals? The only thing the Treasurer has been able to announce is that he is now going to be restricting expenditure by hospitals. Does the government not realize it has created a mess right now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think there are a number of points I could make to the honourable member. First, the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy is not looking at the current operating problems in hospitals or the allocation to that --

Mr. B. Rae: Oh.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, I am sure the member understands that. If he does not, then obviously he was not present when the announcement was made. It was dealing with long-term health care strategy with respect to the cost thereof, with respect to the various pressures on the system, preventive medicine, community-based medicine and other approaches than our traditional institutional approach.

Second, with respect to the nursing question, I think my honourable friend asked the Minister of Health that question yesterday and I think she gave him a very full answer.

Mr. Reville: The Premier notes that his health task force is long-term. He knows that the minister has at least four presumably short-term task forces up and running. It is beginning to sound like a joke about a light bulb.

[Laughter]

Mr. Reville: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

Mr. Reville: No, I am not going to explain it to them. They do not get anything over there.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Reville: I wonder if the Premier, given that he is the chair of a long-term look at health care in the province, can explain why this budget that has just been brought forward continues to do more of the same, continues to pump more money into the drug benefit plan, more money into laboratories, more money into Ontario health insurance plan payments, and less money into community and public health than ever before.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With a budget of that size, there is an enormous amount of demands on those funds. Obviously, nothing is sacrosanct. We are looking at all aspects of the health care budget. The Treasurer is doing that, as is the minister with the help of a number of people.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend will say it is falling apart. That is opposition rhetoric. By any standards, in spite of the problems, we are addressing them, we are working on them. There are 2,800 nursing graduates this year. There is a problem at the moment.

An hon. member: Half of them are going to leave.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Whether they are going to leave or not, I have no idea, but these problems are cyclical. We are working on them and the minister is working on them. I do not think it is time to be alarmist that the whole system is falling apart at all. By any standards, this is seen as probably the best health care system in the world.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: This government has had three years to come to terms with the most difficult problem and all it has done is coast. Now we are paying the price for that coasting.

The question I have for the Premier is this: He may not have been aware of this, but apparently the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) last night announced the new government policy that she said was being suggested by some very important person above the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) but below the Premier. We can only conjecture as to who that person might or might not be. I have no idea. The thumbs are going. Whether it is Hershell or --

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not know who it is.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier is this. Is it the policy of this government that it intends to introduce a seven per cent flat increase in rents in order to deal with the backlog of over 20,000 at rent review at the moment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No.

Mr. B. Rae: Now that we have that definitive judgement, I wonder if the Premier can explain, for example, why it is --

Ms. Poole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not quite have his facts straight. Perhaps his own colleague could confirm them. I did not imply that there was any government policy. I said that a member of the House who is lesser than the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many occasions when members rise on a point of personal explanation to correct their own record.

Mr. B. Rae: If the member feels that I have unjustly accused the Liberal government of having a policy on rent review, I stand corrected. I would never accuse the Liberal government of having a policy on rent review. No one could do that.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: By way of supplementary, I would like to ask the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: Oh well, another day, another 21 per cent. What are you going to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: The question I have for the Premier is this: On April 12, his Minister of Housing said, and I quote, “The amount of increase that could be passed on to tenants in relation to any refinancing costs is five per cent.” It was the five per cent figure that the Premier also used outside when he said I did not know what I was talking about when I was suggesting that flipping apartment buildings could cost tenants as much as 15 per cent or 20 per cent.

I wonder if the Premier can comment on the situation of the building at 55 Wellesley Street East in Toronto where a rent increase of 21.5 per cent was allowed because of the financial loss provisions of the rent review law and specifically because the rent review law and the financial provisions thereof do not apply to buildings post-1975-76. Can the Premier confirm this and can the Premier confirm that flipping in fact is causing these kinds of increases in the --

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I confirm that the answer is no, I cannot confirm it.

1420

Mr. Breaugh: I wonder if the Premier is aware that the investors who own the building at 55 Wellesley Street East, 456592 Ontario Ltd., have just been guaranteed by the government’s rent review decision a 100 per cent return on their investment. The only thing that the government did was to make them phase it in over a five-year period. Is the Premier aware of that, and was that his intention?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, I am not aware of it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), my question is for the Treasurer. It relates to the statement that the Treasurer made yesterday, I believe, with respect to deficits in the health care system relating to the operation of hospitals.

I wonder if the Treasurer could share with this House whether he in fact was in possession of the Ministry of Health study relative to the very question that he addressed yesterday when he indicated that there was no budgetary provision made in his budget of 1988 relative to assuming these deficits on behalf of hospitals, nor was it his intent to pick up these deficits in the future.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I was recalling the statement made by the former Minister of Health to a convention of the Ontario Hospital Association, I believe, in which he made it clear that during the past fiscal year the Ontario Treasury would not pick up the deficits, as had occurred on occasion in the past. I think it was at the time he was announcing that an additional $60 million would be spent to assist the hospitals in their deficit situation.

There was a thorough review of the financing of hospitals, and while I would be the last to say it is enough money, still it was entered into through a rational approach, with an indication that we were not going to pick up deficits in the future and the hospital boards, having been warned of that, would have to administer in such a way that deficits would not occur.

I think in that connection we should understand that 50 of the hospitals regularly come in with a small surplus; 130 of them come in with their budgets under appropriate control, and no additional funding is necessary.

Mr. Brandt: As the Treasurer is aware, last year the hospitals in this province requested a 5.1 per cent increase, which was very much in line, I would think, with the level and the rate of inflation. The minister granted them a 4.4. per cent increase. This year they asked for 4.7 per cent, and once again the minister, in his benevolent fashion, has given them 4.4 per cent, while in fact the rate of inflation is running somewhat above that. I would say that the budget, in terms of the projected increases, is almost double that level.

In the light of the fact that there is a study with a cost that is supposed to be in the area of some $2.2 million, and the study was welcomed by the Ontario Hospital Association and by individual hospitals around this province as one that would assist the government in providing information relative to the whole question of deficits, I have to ask the Treasurer why he would pre-empt that study and come out with a statement, as he did yesterday relative to these operating deficits, long before the study, with which he would have some definitive information upon which to base the position that he took yesterday, was completed.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The leader of the third party is referring, when he talks about 4.4 per cent and so on, to the money that is allocated for salary changes, which were based on negotiations coming in at about that level. To be fair, and I know he would want to be, he would be aware that the transfers to hospital boards were substantially beyond that, as a matter of fact, this year, approaching, I believe, 6.8. per cent. I would think that he should also make it known that in the years since we have taken office, the increase in operating budgets for hospitals has been just under 40 per cent.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the hospitals are in any way profligate. Far from it. Most of them are extremely well administered, and they are on very tough budgets indeed. But with the growth of the cost of medical services, the then Minister of Health, who is now the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), which is a good juxtaposition, indicated clearly that we would not be picking up the deficits this year, that the administrators and the boards ought to be aware of that and that we were sending out teams of assistants as far as administration is concerned so that they would come under their budget. We confidently expect that, in the long run, there will be no additional funding required, and we are assisting the hospitals in that administrative decision.

Mr. Brandt: I know that the Treasurer of this province would want to be entirely accurate with the people of this province with respect to the funding levels for hospitals. In fact, the 4.4 per cent is a correct figure, and the 6.8 per cent figure that he refers to, I am sure, is 6.9 per cent in the budget, where that figure relates to special or extended programs for very specific hospitals. Let us be clear: the average hospital without a special program in this province will get 4.4 per cent.

My question to the Treasurer is this: in light of the fact that there are at least 23 hospitals in this province that are presently operating in a deficit position and were doing so at the time his budget was released, and in light of the fact that there is a very strong feeling in the Ontario Hospital Association and among spokesmen from that organization indicating that 80 per cent of the hospitals in this province will be operating in a deficit position if he does not make some changes in his approach, what is the Treasurer’s response to that organization, recognizing the difficulties that the health care system is getting into?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I felt that the president of the Ontario Hospital Association this morning on CBC responded to the situation in an extremely responsible way. He said the hospitals cannot offer an open-ended service with a budget that is restrained. We do not have open-ended budgets for the provision of that service.

I think the taxpayers and the people of the province expect all of our services to be offered on a budget. I would say it is quite clear that the operation in that particular instance is going to be businesslike. We are certainly prepared through the Ministry of Health to sit down with the hospital boards, but when their budgets were approved we provided money for approved budgets and we expect the administration to live within them.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to pursue that question, but perhaps one of my colleagues can do so later on in question period, because I am simply not satisfied that that covers the subject.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister is your question?

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Solicitor General and it relates to the recent statement by the Solicitor General indicating that she was not prepared to fund the rape crisis centres out of her current budget of some $450 million or $460 million. I would remind the Solicitor General that the amount being requested is $675,000.

I would give her this opportunity, if she would, not to spend more money, as is always suggested by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), but in fact to budget adequately within the amount allocated to her to make provision for this very vital, needed and necessary service. Is the Solicitor General prepared to fund that service in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would be glad to remind the member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Sarnia will be glad to know that in recent years we first doubled the amount put into rape centres, and this year the amount has gone up yet another 13 per cent.

I had a very productive meeting with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, and they did not have the kind of trouble the member seems to have in understanding the points I made. I said to them that we were certainly happy to look at the emergency situation of some crisis centres and look to our immediate budget for the money necessary to keep those from getting into difficulty, while we work together for a better overall approach to rape crisis funding through-out the province in a way that is planned and can be presented to Treasury, Management Board and policy committees in order to have a proper program that is properly funded at the appropriate time.

1430

Mr. Jackson: There seems to be a problem here if, after the budget process, the minister is referring in emergency terms to straightening out the funding base for these organizations. The Ontario women’s directorate is planning a $600,000-advertising campaign to promote the very rape crisis centres in this province. Meanwhile, one of those centres is closed, two are about to close and the balance of them are experiencing financial difficulty.

The minister knows there are laws in this province against advertising which induces people to use a service which, when they telephone, turns out no longer to exist. Is it not a sign of financial mismanagement when the minister spends $600,000 starting in June to advertise a service, when the services may be closed and unavailable by May? What kind of spending priority is the minister setting for Ontario’s rape victims?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Burlington South will be glad to know I included a representative of the women’s directorate at the meeting to ensure that the program put on was not going to create a problem for the rape crisis centres. The program will be directed largely at the public to create awareness of the kinds of problems that exist in our society and not particularly at the victim of rape, who has been served by these rape crisis centres.

They are two different programs. If you are suggesting the other one should not exist, I would be glad to deal with that. Dealing with the rape crisis centres themselves, as I think the member wishes me to as this is a supplementary question, most of them are manned by volunteers. They closed for lack of volunteers or for lack of the time of those volunteers to carry on in such a difficult area without assistance.

I have talked with them and intend to work with them to see if we can find an appropriate way for government money to be used on salaries so that if what they need most is some support help within their own organization to avoid closing, we will be able to assist them in that manner.

Mr. Jackson: Talk, rhetoric and even prayers are going to be insufficient. The minister has the money. Our point is that she is just not managing it correctly. I will give some examples within the ministry. By causing a two-year delay in the Ontario Provincial Police telecommunications project, she has created additional costs and penalties of $1.5 million. She had doubled the size of her personal staff in her office. In fact, cutting two of her executive assistants would save those two centres in Kenora and Oshawa.

The minister’s predecessor spent over $100,000 on new furniture; last year, her ministry spent $31,000 on an unexplained shopping spree at the Hudson’s Bay Company. Finally, she wasted about $140,000 on duplicating the software for the coroners’ computer system. How can the minister stand in this House and tell us that there is no money for rape crisis centres, that all she is going to do is listen and consult, when she has doubled her office staff and spent $100,000 --

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

Hon. Mrs. Smith: In my opinion, the talk and rhetoric are coming from the other side of the floor. I dealt in very practical terms with the people from the coalition. We discussed how the money would be spent. We pointed out to them that, as I have said, the money was 13 per cent more than last year, which was more than double the period before that. We had a very satisfactory talk and we will work with them to see that this money is put to good use and we will help them with future planning.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer, now that the budget has come and gone and we still do not have a land speculation tax in Ontario to prevent the escalating prices of homes. I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us why, despite a 68 per cent increase in the price of homes in the last two years to a level of $212,000 for the average resale price for a home in Metropolitan Toronto, he has not been able to reassure his colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray), who said, according to a lengthy interview in the Windsor Star, that he did not have “a single positive comment to make about the new Robert Nixon budget.”

Further, “He wondered why a province which wasted no time in adopting a speculation tax in the 1970s to stop Americans from gobbling up waterfront properties is so reluctant to crack down on Toronto speculators. ‘Maybe we need a similar initiative today,’ he concluded.”

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us what he is doing to reassure the member for Windsor-Walkerville that he is going to do something about the increasing house prices in Metro.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I always listen to the member for Windsor-Walkerville attentively. He is one of the best members on that side of the House. I appreciate the fact that he has important views on these matters.

As far as the land speculation tax is concerned both the honourable member and anybody else associated with the problem would know it is the land transfer tax, which was established at 20 per cent and which is still there, that keeps the Americans, if we want to keep them out, from buying waterfront property.

Mr. Laughren: Is it still there?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes, that is the one that does it. The land speculation tax was an experiment some years ago which, when we examined it quite carefully, interrupted the real estate market of this jurisdiction for two months. It returned practically no profit to the Treasury and had little or nothing to do with controlling what the honourable member is concerned about.

Actually, there are a number of former Conservative cabinet ministers who are perhaps more knowledgeable about that experience than I. It may be that during the budget debate they would like to express their views on that.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer is truly concerned only with getting revenues into the consolidated revenue fund. We are talking about controlling the price of resale homes, in Metropolitan Toronto in particular.

Does the Treasurer understand what it means with the price of a house at $212,000, with a 15 per cent down payment? That means a down payment of $32,000, a mortgage of $180,000 over 25 years, monthly payments of $1,742 a month and a minimum family income of $62,000. Given those outrageous figures, and in view of the fact that it did work the last time -- the tax on land speculation worked in 1975 -- could the Treasurer tell us who he agrees with, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who thinks it is time something was done, or the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who thinks he had got a sweet headache on his hands?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Whatever the difficulty and the problem, we expect there will be 85,000 housing starts this year. The private sector alone is going to spend $20 billion in this jurisdiction for housing.

My own feeling is that if you continue to look to the past you are going to find solutions that are not fit for the appropriate requirements of our modern community. The honourable member, in looking back nine or 10 years to what was attempted by the previous government and found to be a failure, is making a suggestion that I do not think is practical.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If there is no revenue, that means you would stop speculation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside is not asking a question.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: You will find out soon enough. We have had our share of those. You have two of them in your caucus right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many other members who would like to ask questions.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: Following up on my leader’s question and in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I have a question to the Premier. I need some clarification as to where the bulk of the 39 per cent increase in his government’s expenditures, namely for the health care system, is going. Where exactly is the bulk of the $1.2-billion increase in funding to the Ministry of Health going?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Treasurer could give all those details.

Mr. Speaker: It is referred to the Treasurer.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes, and I would like to refer it to the Minister of Health. However, I think the honourable member is aware that the money is spent in providing for the operation of hospitals, that we have under way a capital program of $850 million over a period of four to five years -- we have the largest capital commitment in the history of the province for building hospitals -- and that the medical practitioners are billing on the basis of the service that is requested by our citizens.

I refer the honourable member to a special budget paper in the budget which simply indicates, as clearly as possible, how those funds are allocated. I commend it to him. I referred yesterday to the column in the Globe and Mail by Orland French. I thought it was a very interesting and reasonable assessment of the information put here.

1440

Mr. Eves: I have a supplementary to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will know very well that there is no new money for capital expenditures for hospitals in this budget above and beyond the announcement made by the predecessor in the Ministry of Health in 1986. In fact, even if one takes those amounts into account, it only amounts, I believe, to some $252 million of the $1.2-billion increase in health care expenditures this year.

The long and the short of it is that there is no new money for capital expenditures. There have been no new funds allocated to community-based health care, the much touted election promise of his party. There is no new money for hospital operating deficits and there is no assistance for the nursing shortage in Ontario. The people of Ontario are paying for his government’s mismanagement. When is he going to get these health care costs under control? The Ontario health insurance plan system is becoming the black hole of the health care system. When is he going to clean up his act over there?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member’s question is important in that it points up the lack of understanding of the budget process we have undertaken. The honourable member will be aware that when we made a long-term commitment of capital, it was so the hospital boards would know at what year the capital was to be made available.

The fact that there is no extra capital means the commitment we made a year and a half ago in this capital program is continuing on our plan. Rather than use the procedure the previous government did, where it held out each year a certain amount of money and tried to pat itself on the back, we want to deal in an effective and useful way with the boards of the various hospitals.

I want the honourable member to know that this year the operation of hospitals is up by 6.9 per cent, not four per cent, to $5,478,000,000, which is 14.5 per cent of the total budget. OHIP is up 10.8 per cent at $4.21 billion, at 10.6 per cent. The Ontario drug benefit plan is up by 14 per cent to $676 million, which is 1.8 per cent of the total budget.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Solicitor General. Over the past five years in this province, I believe the Solicitor General has reported that there have been 41 deaths in automobile accidents due to police pursuits. In 1987, Peel Regional Police, as an example, had 39 pursuits with one fatality. The police, whose job it is to serve and protect, are clearly concerned over these statistics, as is the general public.

There certainly are valid reasons for these police pursuits, but at the same time, it is the responsibility of the police and her ministry to establish rules to govern such situations. In my view, a speeding vehicle can be just as dangerous as a drawn gun.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Mahoney: Is the Solicitor General prepared to lay down rules and regulations for the police to follow in police pursuits and for the general public to understand?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, a special committee was set up to study this very difficult subject of police pursuits. I think the member has himself pointed out the difficulty of the two sides of the issue, the danger that can be created by these cars pursuing at high speeds, particularly in the cities.

The report included the public, the police forces and other professionals. We have been making a study of these. I have recently taken it to a committee of my own caucus and it will be taken very shortly to cabinet. I am sure the recommendations will take into consideration the input into that report and the consideration since given to it by other members of the public and addressed to me.

Mr. Mahoney: By way of supplementary, obviously the police have to be asked to do their job and use their judgement in these cases. Can the Solicitor General ensure that any changes designed to protect the public will also take this flexibility into account on behalf of the police?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This speaks to the essence of the whole problem, whether you protect the public more indeed by chasing and catching potential criminals or crime-breakers, or whether the risk to the public standing by may be too great, we must take that into consideration. It is the weighing of this that we are doing in our recommendations. When we bring forward a policy, the public and the opposition will get a chance to address it. We will make a recommendation and it will be the purpose of our new policy to make this generally available for comment and consideration. I am sure everybody will welcome finally receiving it.

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. This book, printed in 1896, is one of 6.5 million books in the University of Toronto library system. More important, it is one out of 1.8 million which are literally disintegrating and are of no more use to the kids in the system than is this one.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is a Mel Swart trick.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member may not think it is important that the largest library system of all universities across the country is disintegrating in front of us, but I consider it important.

Can the minister tell me how much she got from the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to help this system support the students of Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I certainly share the member’s regret that over a period of a number of years there was very little support for the maintenance of our libraries, but I was very pleased to find when I came into this ministry that the government recognized that this neglect had been going on for some time. That is exactly why they provided some $25 million to the universities in order to support the improvement of libraries, the maintenance of libraries and the replacement of equipment. We have maintained that $25 million worth of support. We have increased that by the 4.5 per cent we have increased all our basic operating grants this year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister will know that, in spite of her $25 million a year, most universities are cutting back on the periodicals and books they buy at the same time as this magnificent resource is being destroyed. Can she tell me how much money she is going to put in this year to save the resource of the John P. Robarts Research Library, the law library and the other libraries at the University of Toronto so that they can continue to be there as a resource for students in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: The honourable member has asked for specific figures that have been specifically addressed to the issue of libraries. I have given him that figure. I have indicated that the figure continues in our basic operating grant and will continue. I am certainly aware of the proposals the University of Toronto library has made and the concerns it has. I am also aware of the concerns they have about some of the price increases they have had to face. We will certainly continue to look at the situation.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. On April 25, 1986, almost two years to the day, the issue of the Wheel-Trans workers’ wages was before this House. At that time, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, “This government has rejected parity as an operating principle in any of these discussions.”

Will the minister responsible for the disabled confirm that in 1988 the Liberal government still rejects Wheel-Trans workers’ wage parity with Toronto Transit Commission drivers?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: The ongoing discussions between the employer and the employees at Wheel-Trans are part of a regular negotiating process that takes place in all sectors of our society. As I said earlier, I am hoping they can come to a just settlement and that the disruption which has been caused to some disabled persons will stop immediately. I am hoping for a just settlement very soon.

Mrs. Marland: It must be very hard for ongoing negotiations to be based on the premise, starting with the Premier’s statement, that he rejects parity with the TTC. Actually, Wheel-Trans services will be taken over by the TTC in November of this year, and at that time I hope the Wheel-Trans workers would receive wage parity with the TTC workers. Does the minister feel it is justified that thousands of disabled persons should suffer because this government is too cheap to solve the problem immediately?

1450

Hon. Mr. Mancini: Last week, my honourable friend from across the floor and her colleagues were in fact berating the government because, they said, we were spending too much money. Now, today, she rises and says our government is cheap and we are not spending enough money. They have a different policy every day of the week.

As I have said earlier, and I wish to repeat this to the honourable member and to her colleagues who know how the negotiation processes work in this province, the employer must negotiate with the employees. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is monitoring the situation. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is monitoring the situation. We are hoping a just settlement can be reached very soon. We are also hoping that when the TTC takes over the operations of Wheel-Trans, we can give new and better service to the disabled community. That is what I am hoping for.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Lupusella: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. One of the issues Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and United States President Ronald Reagan will discuss at their summit tomorrow is acid rain.

Mr. B. Rae: How about housing in Etobicoke?

Mr. Brandt: Are you in favour or against, Jim? Let us know your latest position.

Mr. Lupusella: Given the recent polls showing that both Canadian and American citizens are concerned about the effects of acid rain on lakes, oceans, and now even their houses --

Mr. Laughren: A lot of credibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Lupusella: Do they have any particular problem over there?

What progress does the minister hope to see come out of the summit?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That was a very good question. It was a most timely question in light of the fact that there is an international summit taking place tomorrow.

Although the past record of the summits has not been successful in dealing with the issue of acid rain to the satisfaction of Canadians, I would hope that in this specific case, the Prime Minister will be able to put the case not only to the United States President, but also to members of Congress because he will have the opportunity to address Congress.

What has happened in the past is that there has been a situation where the President has not been eager to move quickly. We have counselled, and in many cases that counsel has not been followed, that a determined effort be made to convince members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives to bring forward a piece of legislation which would bring forward actual cuts, a 50 per cent cut, in acid rain emissions from the United States, in order that we can protect the lakes of members of the opposition and members of the government and all of the people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain there could have been a question asked and another one answered in that time. Supplementary.

Mr. Lupusella: It appears the opposition is not interested in a serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Lupusella: By way of supplementary, one of the concerns the US President raises about the problem of acid rain is its complexity and the need for more research. This view is not shared by some members of the US House of Representatives and Senate. What can be done to convince the US of the seriousness of the problem of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is little dispute among those in the scientific community both here in Canada and in the United States, and I think around the world, of the seriousness of acid rain as a problem and of its damaging effects. It seems to me that if, for instance, Chairman Gorbachev can convince President Reagan to scrap missiles aimed at America’s chief enemy, surely Prime Minister Mulroney can convince the American President to stop bombarding the best friend of America with acid rain.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had a very short response and now members are not allowing another member to ask a question.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: My question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerns the proposed cutbacks at Niagara College. I want to ask it within the context of a statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in this House on April 7, when he said: “...we are committed to accessibility. We are committed to the maximum number of young people receiving post-secondary education.”

The minister will know that the very best scenario at Niagara College this year is that five per cent of the staff will be laid off, eight courses will be liquidated, 143 student seats will be wiped out and transportation between colleges, most of it for single-parent mothers, will be terminated; and also, that if no changes are made in her funding formula, those cutbacks will be quadrupled in the fall of next year.

Given this Premier’s commitments, I simply ask the minister; is she going to permit those cutbacks and consequent reduction in accessibility to take place at Niagara College?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I provided the House with an abundance of information on the college situation generally yesterday. In response to the honourable member’s question, Niagara College faces a particular problem with declining enrolment, and in fact has experienced a declining enrolment situation of approximately 10 per cent of its student body over the past four years. I explained to the House yesterday that the funding formula provides a buffer over a two-year period, and that after that period it does become necessary to make some adjustments in the programming. I can assure the honourable member we are working very closely with Niagara and are providing whatever support is possible as its board of governors manages this situation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister has addressed very minimally the problem at Niagara College. I would like to ask her what her response is to the problem that exists at St. Clair College, where there is a $2-million dollar deficit and where 40 full-time positions will be eliminated for this fall. Is the minister prepared to see those 40 jobs eliminated and to see the programs eliminated that will result from these layoffs? Is she further aware that in all of the western Ontario colleges, the total deficit is $12 million?

Is the minister going to continue to allow these programs in our practical colleges across this province to deteriorate in the elimination of accessibility? Is she prepared to use her clout as minister to try to protect these programs?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: We are certainly prepared to work with each of the colleges as they are managing their budgets for this year. The figures the honourable member is using are in the interim stages of being developed by each college as they look at their particular budgets, and there will be unique situations from college to college. As I indicated in the House yesterday, we have made a very large commitment of support to the colleges across this province, the funding support being a 35.6 per cent increase over the three-year period. There are very definitely some longer term concerns with the colleges and they are concerns we are looking at through a review of the role of colleges with the Council of Regents.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Premier. He may not be aware of it, but this week at the standing committee on public accounts there will be a motion before the committee requiring the auditor to go in and do an audit of the day-pass system in the hospital forensic facilities across this province. As the Premier knows, there is a great deal of concern in his area, the St. Thomas-London area, because of the brutal sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl several weeks ago. I would like to ask the Premier if he is prepared to indicate to his back-benchers serving on that committee that he has no difficulty whatsoever with their supporting that motion.

1500

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I take the member’s question seriously and I respect the right of the committee to make its own judgement in that regard. I say to the member seriously that I do not direct the members of committee what to do. I am sure that if my honourable friend brings the motion forward in the committee, it will be taken seriously by the members of the committee and that they will address themselves accordingly. If they feel that is the appropriate course of action for the auditor -- I was not aware of it; it may well be -- then I am sure my friend will find support in trying to address this very unfortunate incident.

Mr. Runciman: I guess I would like to see a stronger expression of support from the member representing the London area, where a great deal of the concern is being expressed. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) said a couple of weeks ago that she wanted to have a full public investigation undertaken. Mr. Justice Callon rejected that. He said the Solicitor General does not have a right to go in there and take a look at the system. This is a public safety question we are dealing with and I would like to see the Premier indicate quite clearly today that he supports an open, public, thorough investigation of this process and that he will indicate his support to the back-benchers serving on that committee.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again, I say to my honourable friend that we do not dictate to the committees. They will make their own judgement.

Mr. Runciman: Indicate your support as an MPP from London.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, I say to my honourable friend that my support, frankly, is irrelevant. They will make their own decision, as they should.

Mr. Runciman: You represent the people of that area. It is your problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, I represent the people of all the province and I try to do that as sensitively as I possibly can.

It was a terribly unfortunate incident. I am quite aware of it. There is no suggestion that anybody wants to hide the truth. We are looking for solutions to the situation, as are all parties concerned. I think my honourable friend would want to be just a little bit restrained in some of his rhetoric or his accusations in this matter.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Attorney General. I have become concerned about the availability of legal services for low-income people in my riding. A stream of people come to my office with problems which are either clearly legal in nature or so close to being legal that you need a lawyer to determine whether they are or not. Local lawyers offer assistance on a volunteer basis in the evenings, but apart from this, the poor of my riding have nowhere to turn. What is the nature, and more important what is the current status of the minister’s program of public legal aid clinics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member will perhaps know that the legal aid plan, which is run by the Law Society of Upper Canada and a lay committee, is funded by my ministry. The honourable member will want to know that the budget of this plan in the last three years has markedly increased.

One of the reasons I like the budget, by the way, is that over the last couple of years there has been a major increase in clinic funding, so we now have some 70 clinics in the province, expanding the system at a time when legal aid systems, which I believe are so important for the poor and underprivileged in the community, are collapsing all over the world. It is only recently that serious cutbacks took place in Manitoba in the legal aid clinic system, for which payment will no doubt shortly be exacted.

We have this elaborate system. The determination as to where the clinics will be placed is made by the clinic funding committee, a mixed lay and professional committee, in response to local applications.

Mr. Adams: Why is it that a community such as Peterborough, which is a regional centre for more than 300,000 people, lacks such a clinic? Is there anything the minister can do to help me obtain one?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I can tell the honourable member that in fact this year an application has been made by a community group in Peterborough to be funded as a legal aid clinic under the legal aid plan. As I have also said to the honourable member, these judgements as to which will be funded are made within the budget that the government provides, by the funding agency which is independent of government.

I understand, however, that very shortly the clinic funding committee will be passing on that application. If it should approve the Peterborough community group that has applied, I will be delighted to so advise the honourable member and his constituents as quickly as possible.

DENTAL CARE

Mr. Farnan: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. The minister must be aware that as this government stalls on delivering its election promises with regard to denticare, the health of seniors will continue to be affected by deteriorating dental health, inadequate nutrition, and in many cases the self-image and confidence of seniors and their ability to socialize will be greatly diminished. Would the minister explain why this Liberal government has failed to deliver on its promises with regard to denticare for senior citizens?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am pleased to answer that question on behalf of the Minister of Health. As the member is aware, last November the Minister of Health reconvened the Advisory Committee on Dental Care for seniors. I am also pleased to report that a senior citizen in the province sits on that committee. A member from my office is also a member of that committee.

I should also tell the member that I receive a considerable number of letters from seniors, who are not shy about indicating their needs and desires on the issue of dental care, and certainly their wishes and desires have been forwarded to that committee for study.

Mr. Farnan: Our seniors are asked once more to wait for studies -- studies, I might add, with no time limit for reporting. Let me assure the minister that the senior citizens of Ontario are sick to their teeth with the broken promises of this government about denticare. In the 1985 and 1987 elections, this government made promises for programs and not for studies. Let me remind the minister that I wrote to the Minister of Health urging implementation of programs and not studies. I got no reply.

My question to the minister is this: how much longer must our seniors wait for denticare, and will the minister admit in this House today that this government has misled, deceived and in fact lied to the senior citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The member may know that in our institutions in which seniors reside across the province, dental assessments are made for those seniors. I should also tell him that the report from the Minister of Health’s committee is expected within a six-month period. The third thing the member might wish to know is that I do meet regularly with seniors’ groups across the province, and while they have expressed concern about the dental issue in varying degrees from one group to another, the groups have all been extremely satisfied that their interests are being discussed by this committee.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I would like to ask the Minister of Education a question. The Carleton Board of Education is devastated by his capital allocation announcements today. First, he put it to the parents and the taxpayers of the Carleton Board of Education by dropping his share of the operating budget of the Carleton Board of Education. Now he has put it to the students of the Carleton Board of Education by giving the Carleton Board of Education less than what it got last year, and he only gave it 15 per cent of what it needed last year. Next year the Carleton Board of Education will have 1,000 more students than it had this year and due to the minister’s niggardly allocation, it is going to have most of those students housed in portable classrooms.

During the Bill 30 debate, his government said that the quality of education in the public school system would not deteriorate.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sterling: Due to his unfair allocation for operating expenses, due to his unfair allocation with regard to capital, will he now apologize for his government’s misleading the people of the Carleton Board of Education area in upholding the quality of education in Carleton?

1510

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it is time for me to draw to the attention of some, and possibly all, members of the House that I know they are very careful in the language they use. I remind them of standing order 19(d)(10), which makes it a little difficult for the Speaker. It says, “charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.”

I appreciate you were accusing the government, but I just ask all members to consider a little more carefully the language they use so that they do not create disorder.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Mr. Speaker, although you may appreciate the member’s accusing the government, I do not. In response to the member, relative to the concerns he has expressed previously over the fact that we utilize equalized assessment in this province to try to generate some equity in terms of how we provide operational funds to school boards throughout this province, I know the member feels very strongly in support of finding alternative mechanisms, perhaps by pooling or whatever, so that everyone receives the same grant level. I know he has expressed that opinion previously in this House, relative to the method by which we try to equalize the funds that are available to boards of education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Relative to the issue of capital funding, I am sure the member will appreciate that in making the very difficult decisions of allocating the limited amounts of funds that are available, albeit four times the amount that was committed during the member’s short time in cabinet in the previous government --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No one seems to be interested any more. The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas Ontario’s municipalities are opposed to the Peterson local option for Sunday shopping, we request that consideration be given to the views of these persons who have signed a petition, which reads, in part, as follows:

“We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business.

“The undersigned are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons:

“1. As Christians in the reformed tradition, we value Sunday as a day for worship and rest.

“2. Regardless of religion, families need a regular, patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

“3. Regardless of religion, individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly.”

So presented.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Adams: I have another petition from health care workers concerned about an open forum of the College of Nurses of Ontario to be held in Peterborough tomorrow. It is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, It reads as follows:

“We strongly disagree with the college of nurses’ proposed standards and levels of nursing practice. The college has been conducting information sessions around the province the past several months and will be in Peterborough April 27. Many questions and concerns have not been addressed following these sessions.

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

“We urge the college of nurses to cease and desist from promulgating such divisive acts.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: I have two petitions to present. One is a petition in response to an ad saying, “We don’t think wide-open Sunday shopping is a very bright idea.” The store involved, Living Lighting, had this petition for people to sign. 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:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and we want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

This is signed, on several pages, by about 160 citizens of the city of North Bay, who signed the petition at the Living Lighting store at the Northgate Square Shopping Centre.

Mr. Speaker: You have added your own signature?

Mr. Harris: My own signature is being added as I speak.

I have a second one, as my own signature is being added to both of them, which reads:

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened;

“That the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

It is signed by approximately 17 or 18 citizens of North Bay. It, too, very shortly will bear my signature.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a petition, which reads:

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

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

“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 practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

This petition is signed by approximately 120 residents of Ontario, and I have subscribed my name thereto.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 19 and 20 standing in the names of the members for St. Catherines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) and Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the members for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) and Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 76

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the order for second reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

1520

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Statute Law Act, 1988.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: This replaces the Education Statute Law Amendment Act, 1987.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) adjourned the debate.

Mr. Laughren: I am pleased to be responding to the Ontario budget on behalf of my caucus and my party.

In the month or so leading up to the budget, I and my colleagues had tried to lay out before the assembly and the people of Ontario, but in particular the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), some of our priorities going into this budget in the hope that we could have some influence on it.

In my efforts to do that, I can assure members I was assisted most ably by the people around me, in particular the research people -- that totally intimidates the Treasurer -- namely, Diane Bull and Eugene Ellmen, and my two legislative assistants, Sandra Vander Schaaf and Marianne Gallagher. To them I owe my thanks.

When we were working towards the budget date, we tried to say to the Treasurer that we were going to focus on the whole question of fairness in Ontario’s tax system. That was the purpose with which we headed towards the budget and that has been the focus of our comments since the budget was read by the Treasurer.

We laid before the Treasurer a lot of information -- I hope not too many statistics, but certainly statistics to back up our argument in every single case. When we called for new programs, we indicated how much they would cost. We also laid before the Treasurer some opportunities for new revenues because, being as responsible an opposition as we are, we know that you cannot simply call for new programs without indicating that you also are responsible for raising new revenues. I guess that is what bothered us most of all about the Treasurer’s response, because we had told him as clearly as we could that there were a number of ways in which the money could be found, and I will deal with that in some detail.

When the Treasurer tabled his budget last week, working families in Ontario were hoping to avoid large and unfair tax increases. Unfortunately, their hopes were dashed as the Treasurer raised every major provincial tax that families and individuals pay while at the same time increasing tax concessions to the private sector.

Frankly, I am appalled at the lack of fairness in the Treasurer’s budget. For some time now, New Democrats, both federally and provincially, have been calling for more fairness in our tax system. We believe the purpose of a tax system is not just to be a source of funds for governments to play with but also an opportunity to make our society a more civilized and caring one.

We thought the principle of a progressive tax system was beyond challenge, but now I am not so sure that is true, given what the Treasurer has done. I also always thought that being a Liberal meant being a reformer. I still believe that that is the traditional role of Liberals -- to be reformers -- but when I look around me now at the large number of back-benchers, virtually none of them are raising their voices crying out for reform. There is the odd exception, the odd member who is raising his or her voice in protest at the policies of the government, and for that I commend the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) for having the courage to speak out and make his views known.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What are your views on NATO?

Mr. Laughren: I would reform that policy as well. I am trying to make the point that we did look --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Gone is the old demagogue.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: The fact is, the Treasurer and every single other member of the Liberal caucus have endorsed a tax system that is more regressive than when this Treasurer became the Treasurer of Ontario. We have a more regressive tax system now than we had when the Tories were in power. I would not have thought that was possible, but that is what has happened.

Why else would Ontario have increased the most regressive of all possible taxes, the sale tax? Why else would the Treasurer have adjusted the personal income tax rate so that a family of four earning $40,000 per year -- hardly in the upper income -- will be paying $9 more in Ontario income tax next year, while a family of four earning $90,000 per year will pay $103 less?

Mr. Polsinelli: Are you taking into consideration the tax credits?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I am taking into consideration the tax credits. I would have hoped the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer would know that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Address your remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Are you sure you want that, Mr. Speaker? If the Treasurer were really interested in a progressive tax system, why would he have refused to implement a minimum corporate income tax for Ontario? We know there are about 30,000 Ontario corporations that will legally avoid paying any income taxes in the province. That is on total income of about $4 billion, we think.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Gilles, are you the guy who sits beside him when he talks?

Mr. Laughren: The Chairman of Management Board, who is responsible for administering the funds among the various ministries, if I understand his role correctly, interjects in a way that shows he has no comprehension of what we are talking about. I think the Chairman of Management Board should simply go back to parcelling out the money among the ministers as the Treasurer tells him to do. That is his only role.

When I look at the federal tax regime for a moment, I think of the 20 per cent of the tax savings from Michael Wilson’s tax reform that is going to go to the top two per cent of families with incomes over $100,000 a year. Michael Wilson’s intentions, which were endorsed, by the way, by the Treasurer, are to move further and further away from income tax as a means of generating revenue and to rely more heavily on the most regressive of all taxes, the sales tax.

A statistic that bothers me and it should bother the Treasurer -- talking now about Canada as a whole -- is that the Canadian reliance on sales taxes at both the federal and provincial levels is truly frightening. Nearly 35 per cent of total revenues in Canada are raised from taxes on goods and services, compared with only 17 per cent in the United States -- it is twice as high here -- and an average of 29 per cent in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. That is certainly one measure of progressivity -- to what extent the government taxes income and to what extent it taxes the sale of goods and services.

It is actually quite unbelievable that this government introduced a $900-million increase in the sales tax, a move which is nothing but a cheap tax grab directed at those who are least able to pay. This is the same government that protested so strongly when the Conservatives were in power and increased the sales tax in 1982 by $340 million. They protested so much that they walked out of the Legislature for four days and left the bells ringing.

1530

I would like to remind the Treasurer and the present government House leader of some of the things that were said back in those days. The Treasurer can say, “Well, you know, we say things we do not really mean;” I assume that he is still saying things he does not really mean.

Let me quote to the House. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said the following, in talking to the infamous Frank Miller:

“The Treasurer’s priorities are to throw out a few dollars here and then look for the political credit in a variety of other areas...At the same time, he is whacking people in this province with outrageous tax increases that I think are unconscionable.

“At a time of recession in this province, how can the Treasurer extract all these consumption taxes from those people least able to pay?...How can he justify that perverted sense of priorities when we are in such serious trouble in this province?”

Later he asks this question: “Does the Treasurer not agree with me that his new round of tax increases hits the poor far harder than it hits the rich? Was that the intention of his budget, to extract more out of the poor?”

I ask the government, what is the difference between what the Treasurer has done in this budget and what Frank Miller did back in 1982?

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: That makes a difference, does it, to the poor?

Here is another quote from the present Premier:

“What we saw in the budget was a change in the philosophy of taxation. We saw a move away from the progressive system which we, as Liberals, believe in passionately, taxation that is based on the ability to pay, and saw a major move towards flat consumption and regressive taxes. We saw a shift on to the poor, the lower-income families who have less capacity to deal with these taxes than people at higher income scales.

“As a party, we chose as a rather dramatic signal of our displeasure not to show up to vote for a couple of days.” That was the Premier back in 1982.

I think it is time to quote the Treasurer. He is here; the Premier is not. This is more recent than 1982. I know the Treasurer wants to be brought up to speed. This is in November 1985, when he brought in a budget. We were debating the Treasurer’s own Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, which brought in some amendments to the sales tax. This is what the Treasurer said:

“It was tempting to say, ‘Let us increase the sales tax by one per cent and thereby reap $700 million of additional revenue by just changing one little number one little bit.’ However, the attitude expressed by most of the progressive members of the House, except for the Progressive Conservatives, is that sales tax is a revenue that we want to keep under strict control and, if anything, increase what little progressivity there is by improving tax grants and by keeping it as low as is practicable.”

That was in 1985. Now, suddenly, the Treasurer goes back on his own word. The Treasurer is lying to himself.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Just moved one little number one little bit.

Mr. Laughren: One little number one little bit, yes, that is right, and we have a more regressive tax system.

It is total nonsense to talk about the tax credits. They have decreased in value by 40 per cent since they were introduced. The Treasurer has not done anything to keep them up to date.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is the surtax.

Mr. Laughren: That is total nonsense.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is $100 million.

Mr. Laughren: The income tax surtax kicks in at roughly $90,000 per year.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In 1985.

Mr. Laughren: I thought we were now debating the 1988-89 budget.

The Deputy Speaker: I would appreciate the member addressing his remarks through the Speaker, please.

Mr. Laughren: Well, the interjections are not coming through you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: If you address your remarks through the Speaker, you will get fewer interjections.

Mr. Laughren: All right. I am truly galled that while individuals continue to pay sales tax on more and more goods and services, businesses, as is so often the case, continue to pay less than their fair share. While Ontarians who cannot afford a new pair of shoes must pay sales tax on the cost of repairs to the old shoes as well as the cost of repairs on appliances and cars, there continues to be a whole range of business services that are not taxed.

As a matter of fact, we laid before the Treasurer a whole range of business services that could be taxed the way individuals in Ontario are taxed. If my memory serves me correctly, the amount of money that those taxes would have raised was in the neighbourhood of $300 million a year. Yet the Treasurer does not pick -- if he really feels he needs the revenues, and I have heard him say, “We need the revenues to provide the programs you’re all clamouring for,” then why does he not raise the taxes on a fairer base?

What we were saying right from the beginning was that if he needs more money for new programs, we do not question that. What we are saying is that he should reform the tax system so that when he does raise taxes, he is doing it from a progressive base. That is all we have said to the Treasurer. That is what we have said. We have never said there does not need to be more money for programs. We have never said that. What we have said is it must be done in a fairer way.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And in a different way than I’m doing it.

Mr. Laughren: That is right, in a much different way than he is doing it. I try to make a point of not being personal in these debates, but I think it is time we had a Treasurer of modest means in this province, so that there is an understanding of the burden that ordinary people in this province face.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I’m the most modest means person in this House.

An hon. member: Play the poverty game for a while and see how you like it.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right.

While there are some sales tax credits which help to offset the costs of the regressive sales taxes for those living below the poverty line, the changes made in last week’s budget are totally inadequate. Just to bring the value of credits back up to their original, pre-inflation value would require an additional expenditure of $370 million. Instead, the government put in $84 million and beat its collective chest about the increase. There is truly much truth in the fact that the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.

Incredibly, in his budget last week the Treasurer did nothing to offset the increase in the new sales tax for senior citizens. The other parts of the budget that he made more regressive I did not like but I understood, because I think I understand this Treasurer. I did not understand what he did not do for the seniors in Ontario. I really expected, particularly given the demographic shifts in Ontario, that the Treasurer would do something for the seniors. The increase in the sales tax credit, which he doubled, applies only to those under age 65. Those over 65 will get absolutely nothing, even though the new sales tax will cost them something like $50 a year.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: They get free OHIP, free drugs --

Mr. Laughren: They were already getting that before he zapped them with his new sales tax.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That’s right, exactly right. It is just right.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer implies that the seniors have got a good deal. That is what he is saying to us and to the seniors in Ontario. He does not seem to comprehend the fact that 20 per cent of seniors in this province live below the poverty line, and if we look at single women over 65, the percentage is a lot higher than that. This Treasurer does not seem to understand, does not seem to comprehend.

Then, of course, if I could turn to a group of people other members in the assembly might associate with more readily than low-income people, the middle class -- they are the ones who are really bearing the brunt of this budget. A family of four earning $40,000 a year is going to be paying almost $150 a year in increased taxes this year as a result of the sales tax increase alone.

We know that with this sales tax increase, the Treasurer is going to increase his revenues on a yearly basis by about $900 million. He is actually flirting with a billion dollars. One would have thought that with that $900 million he could have alleviated some of the housing shortage, eliminated income tax for the poor, made a commitment to community-based health care and increased the share of the budget going towards education.

No, he did none of those. While the extra revenue generated from that one per cent will, as I said, be about $900 million on a yearly basis, $820 million this year is going to reduce the government’s budgetary deficit, as I read those numbers, a deficit that was not out of line to begin with, despite what some of his critics might say. The move, by the way, to reduce the deficit we believe was made solely for the benefit of the business community that does not like a deficit anyway. That sector believes that too much money is spent on services for people as it is.

1540

Unfortunately, the sales tax increase was not the only assault on low-and middle-income people in the budget. Little was done to make the personal income tax system fairer for either middle-income families or low-income families. This assault on fairness was started by the federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, although I must say that this Treasurer is following lockstep with the federal Minister of Finance.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Is that what I’m doing?

Mr. Laughren: It is not because it is more regressive that he is objecting.

Let me remind the Treasurer of a couple of things about the federal system. Under federal tax reform, three quarters of households with incomes in excess of $100,000 will receive an average savings of over $4,300. In fact, 20 per cent of tax savings from tax reform will go to the two per cent of families with incomes in excess of $100,000 a year. Families with incomes of less than $15,000 will get an average tax break of $90.

To me, that is what speaks so loudly about the kind of tax reform that Michael Wilson and Robert Nixon endorse. A $100,000-a-year family gets a $4,300 break. If you happen to have an income of $15,000, you get a tax break of $90. That is tax reform.

The average income tax cut under tax reform for a two-income-earner family with two children making $30,000 will be $263. However, that same family, although it is saving $263 under federal tax reform, has faced tax increases of almost $1,000 since Mulroney became the Prime Minister. That is a lot like sticking a gun in somebody’s back, taking his wallet, giving him back $10 and expecting him to appreciate the $10 refund.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It could have been worse.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly right. That is exactly what the Treasurer and the federal Minister of Finance are saying.

In our prebudget work leading up to the Treasurer’s budget, we made a number of unsettling discoveries, like the fact that in 1985, which was the latest year we could get statistics -- we did not pick that year to prove any point -- there were 446,000 people in Ontario earning less than $10,000 who paid Ontario and federal income tax, while 3,300 people who earned over $50,000 paid not one cent in Ontario or federal income tax.

Is that the Treasurer’s idea of tax reform? Is that the Treasurer’s idea of fairness in our tax system? While over 70 per cent of these low-income taxpayers had their largest source of income from employment, nearly 80 per cent of the high-income tax avoiders, the ones who paid no tax, were investors. Will tax reform change that? Not at the federal level and not at the provincial level will it change that.

Under tax reform, Ontarians can make $100,000 in capital gains and pay no tax whatsoever; none. Additional capital gains are taxed even beyond the $100,000 at much lower rates than is taxed for employment. In fact, this Treasurer has indicated that over the next five years his government will in effect be giving $1 billion to these capital gains earners in the form of special tax treatment.

Although all interest income will now be subject to taxation, dividends will still be subject to a favourable tax treatment. An investor with $20,000 in dividend income and no other income will pay no income tax whatsoever, while a worker with the same income level will pay no income tax.

Mr. B. Rae: None?

Mr. Laughren: Zero; absolutely nothing.

Mr. B. Rae: You’re sure of that?

Mr. Laughren: None; $20,000 of dividend income --

Mr. B. Rae: So $20,000 and pay no tax?

Mr. Laughren: Pay no tax.

Mr. B. Rae: Not a cent?

Mr. Polsinelli: That is assuming they have no other income.

Mr. Laughren: That is what I said.

An hon. member: Go and clip your coupons.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: While somebody who works for a living and does not just clip his dividend coupons and earns $20,000 --

Mr. B. Rae: Try to defend that in Yorkview.

An hon. member: Go and count your divvies.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to see you stand on the corner of Jane and Finch and defend that statement.

An hon. member: Clip your coupons.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Lake Nipigon is making comments while not in his seat. I would appreciate if he would listen to the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) did not hear me because he was interjecting. What I am trying to say to the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer is that people who clips their dividends or bond coupons and earn or receive -- I should not say earn -- $20,000 in a year, and no other income, pay zero taxes. If people go out there and work for a living and make $20,000 that year, they pay $3,400 in income taxes. There is some difference, my friend, some difference.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to have that.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly the point. The parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer says that he would love to have that. That really says it all. They are not going to change the system to make it more fair when they all want to get on the gravy train themselves. That is exactly what is happening, my friend. They do not want to change it because they want to be there some day. I hope this budget lays to rest any idea that people in Ontario had that we have a reform-minded government. We have a regressive-minded government.

Given the regressive nature of the federal tax reform, we said to ourselves, “Surely the Treasurer can move to make the federal tax regime a little less regressive.” But did he? No, he did not. Not at all. He made the system even more regressive by raising what is already a regressive system, his taxes on that basic tax Ontario need to know much Safe than that to get a sense of where this Treasurer is coming from.

You earn $40,000 a year in Ontario next year and you will pay more. You earn $90,000 a year in Ontario next year and you will pay less than you would have before the Treasurer’s budget. That is absolutely correct.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) is not on his feet ever, either.

It is unconscionable to us in this party that working families with incomes at or below the poverty level continue to pay income tax in Ontario. The Treasurer’s officials told us in the budget lockup last week that a family of four earning around $14,000 -- $13,980 to be exact that is, $10,000 below the poverty line set by Statscan, not set by us -- will have to pay Ontario income tax next year, and an individual earning $7,900, which is $4,000 below the poverty line, will be forced to pay income tax in Ontario next year.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: I am including tax credits. We are not talking about low-income people here. We are talking about people below the poverty line.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Which ones are we talking about?

Mr. Laughren: He is getting me confused. The interjections are going to get me angry in a moment.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member will call someone a bum next.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Well, he is still sitting here.

The fact is that next year, after federal tax reform and after the Treasurer’s budget, people earning below the poverty line, in some cases $10,000 below the Statscan poverty line, will be paying Ontario income tax. We think that is fundamentally wrong; yet it is going to continue to happen in Ontario.

The Treasurer says he cannot afford it; he has done all he can. The total cost of our proposal to remove people below the poverty line from the Ontario tax rolls was about $100 million a year. We tried to say to the Treasurer, with $900 million extra revenue in retail sales tax alone, that surely to goodness $100 million of that could have gone to remove people below the poverty line from Ontario’s tax rolls.

Mr. Polsinelli: Your figures are off.

Mr Laughren: The figures are not off. The member for Yorkview is the only person who has challenged them. Given his knowledge base, I do not think I will take his challenge seriously.

One third of the $300 million in business services tax that we had suggested to the the Treasurer would have paid for removing everybody below the poverty level from the tax rolls. We were horrified to discover during our prebudget research that in wealthy Ontario an Ontario family of four living below the poverty line, with an income of just $20,000, pays more in taxes and levies than it would in all other Canadian provinces with the exception of Newfoundland. I made that point a few minutes ago. We pay the highest personal taxes of any province in Canada.

Contrary to what the Treasurer tells us, the Ontario health insurance plan is borne largely by individuals, not by corporations, especially at the low-income levels. There are over one million mostly lower-income Ontarians who pay their OHIP tax directly to the government, with no assistance from government or business. There are countless more low-income earners who work for small businesses or who earn the minimum wage whose employer submits the OHIP tax to the government, as is required by law, but the business pays nothing towards it. They are just like retail stores who collect sales tax.

Even big corporations rarely pay all the OHIP tax for their workers. For example, just to name a few, Guaranty Trust pays 20 per cent, leaving the employee to pay the remaining 80 per cent; Toronto-Dominion Bank pays 50 per cent; and the Bank of Montreal pays 58 per cent. These are some of the biggest corporations paying that kind of percentage of their employees’ OHIP premiums. Then there are the 100,000 or more Ontarians who manage to slip through the cracks completely and have no OHIP coverage whatsoever.

We proposed the complete elimination of OHIP premiums over a five-year period -- not unlike what the Liberal Party had campaigned on -- and that, in this first year, they be eliminated totally for Ontario’s working poor. The cost of that proposal is about $160 million. Once again with $900 million in new revenues from the retail sales tax, we are saying, take $160 million and remove Ontario’s working poor from the burden of having to pay OHIP premiums.

Mr. Pouliot: It’s simple, reasonable and fair.

Mr. Laughren: The Liberal government campaigned on the abolishment of OHIP premiums, as I recall.

I recall a quote from the Premier. He said in 1985, not so long ago: “That is why a Liberal government will abolish the regressive OHIP premium. There is no reason why a self-employed taxi driver should pay the same OHIP premium as a $350,000-a-year bank president.”

We are getting so weary of senior officials in this government -- the Treasurer and the Premier -- making these grand announcements, going to the people, getting the majority government; then when they get it, they renege on those promises. “Renege” is a parliamentary word, Mr. Speaker. Believe me, I could use some unparliamentary ones that would more aptly describe the behaviour of this government since it got its coveted majority.

The people in Ontario will understand very clearly what they have done by giving this government a majority. I can remember warning the people of Ontario during the campaign, when it looked as if there was going to be a majority government, “You give this government a majority and what you have seen in Ottawa you will see a carbon copy of in Ontario.” I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what difference is there?

As a matter of fact, when one looks at the tax system, they have made it more regressive than Brian Mulroney even did, and that is saying something.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for attempting to protect me.

1600

We have made a number of points on trying to make the tax system fairer. One of the points I tried to make to the Treasurer was the difference between the average person out there who is trying to get by and people who know how to beat the system. These are the examples we used. In one case, we have an Ontario family of four -- this is in 1986, the latest figures we could get -- with an income of $21,700, which was then at the poverty line. Brascan Ltd., on the other hand, an Ontario-based corporation, in that year had profits of $136 million; Cadillac Fairview had a profit of $58 million; Xerox, $59 million, and the Toronto Stock Exchange, $6 million. Those corporations with those profits paid absolutely no corporate income tax whatsoever -- absolutely none.

Mr. B. Rae: How much? Zero? Unbelievable.

Mr. Laughren: Zero. Brascan, Cadillac Fairview, Xerox and the Toronto Stock Exchange paid no taxes despite those profits. That family with an income of $21,700 paid $900 in Ontario income tax and $1,800 in federal income tax.

This is not simply a rant against the corporate sector; it is a plea for fairness in our tax system in this province. It is not beyond our capacity to deliver it. Even after tax reform, that problem is still going to be there, because the Treasurer refuses to bring in a minimum corporate tax in Ontario. It is within his means to do it and he simply will not do it.

As if to make it worse, the Treasurer stands on his feet in the assembly here and brags that we spend less on a per capita basis on our people than do other provinces in Canada. The Treasurer is truly proud of that. It is as though Frank Miller was back sitting in the Treasurer’s chair. I do not want to be too unkind to the Treasurer, but I can see why he is squirming now.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I’m trying to stay awake.

Mr. Laughren: Frank Miller did not even do what this Treasurer has done. It is unconscionable to us that there are 30,000 families in this province on waiting lists for assisted housing or that there are 20,000 homeless persons in Ontario, half of those in Metro Toronto, and the share of the provincial budget for housing is less today than it was when the Conservatives were in power.

What we need is to bring the commitment to housing back up to what it was when the Tories were in power. It would probably take five years to bring it up to that level, that is how far it has shrunk, but it is no wonder we have a housing problem in the province when they have allowed that to happen.

I am truly appalled as well --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Shocked.

Mr. Laughren: -- shocked and appalled, which the Treasurer thinks is terribly funny, at the price of houses in Metropolitan Toronto in particular.

I thought nothing revealed the Treasurer’s true colours as much as his response to my question in question period this afternoon. I was trying to make the point to the Treasurer that the average resale price of a house in Metro Toronto is $212,000, up $6,000 in the month of March alone, up 58 per cent in the last two years. As a matter of fact, it may be more than that.

The Treasurer said, “But we had a speculation tax back in 1974-75 and it didn’t work and it didn’t raise any revenue.” The Treasurer does not seem to understand that if a speculation tax is working, it will not raise any revenue. The purpose of the speculation tax is --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You were going to fund your housing program on the revenue.

Mr. Laughren: No, no. The speculation tax is to prevent speculation. It is not a revenue-raising device.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You are trying to have it both ways as usual.

Mr. Laughren: No, I am not trying to have it both ways. If the Treasurer does not want to impose a speculation tax, surely to goodness he has an obligation to take some kind of action to restrict the escalating home prices, particularly in Metro.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: The members continue to think, as is typical in a majority government, that home prices are a big laugh, because some day they hope to have one of those houses, I guess.

You now have to have an income of $62,000 to qualify for the average price of a resale home in Metro -- $62,000.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You’re making that much.

Mr. Laughren: I have my house where I live. I am not talking about me.

It takes $1,700 a month in payments to pay for that house, with a $180,000 mortgage.

It strikes me as truly cold-blooded to sit back and calmly watch what the Treasurer calls the marketplace determine the price of homes in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not believe it is the marketplace. I am going to tell the Treasurer a very short anecdote. I have a friend who is in the business community, who has a friend who sells real estate.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He showed 30 houses to somebody from overseas, but didn’t sell any of them. The next day the person phoned up and bought them all. I go to the same cocktail parties.

Mr. Laughren: No. The Treasurer is very close to it. The real estate agent showed 28 houses to an overseas investor. The couple from overseas left without buying any houses. The real estate agent was complaining till three days later when they phoned from overseas and said, “We will take 26 of those 28 houses.” That is the kind of speculation that is going on. It does not seem to bother this government.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is not factual.

Mr. Laughren: It is factual.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Turn up the facts. “A friend of a friend who is in real estate -- ”

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: I do not think we need any facts other than what is happening to the price of homes. The only fact the Treasurer needs to know is that in the month of March 1988 the average price of a resale home in Metro went from $206,000 to $212,000. If the Treasurer needs more facts than that, then it is an indication that he intends to do absolutely nothing about it. He thinks that is the marketplace at work. It is speculators at work.

The proposal in the budget, which my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) so appropriately described as Ohospit is the best explanation possible for the housing program.

I just say to the Treasurer one last time that it is time we had a land speculation tax in the province to send a signal out to the speculators that they are not welcome in the home market in this province. That is the signal that needs to go out.

Mr. Breaugh: Even you are not welcome as a land speculator.

Mr. Laughren: He may hope to be there some day.

I want to turn now from the problem of individual tax unfairness to what could be described as regional unfairness in the province, although I cannot say it as eloquently as the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) when he was describing what is going on in the province. I am really talking about how the Treasurer treats northern Ontario.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville, I thought, put it extremely well. He says he is staggered every weekend by the painful contrast between struggling Windsor and ludicrously wealthy downtown Toronto. “Toronto” says Ray “is like an enormous vacuum cleaner, sucking up all the wealth, talent and growth industries in the province.” His conclusion: “Somewhere along the way, the rest of the province, the Windsors, Thunder Bays, Cornwalls and North Bays are subsidizing Toronto.” He wonders why taxpayers in other parts of the province must pick up a big chunk of the tab for schools, housing and transportation links required because Toronto shows no restraint in overloading its whole municipal infrastructure.

This is not an attack on Toronto. I happen to like this city. However, it is an indication of how other parts of this province feel about how they are being treated. There is no better example of that than northern Ontario. In the way of showing the way in which the economy of the north is treated, compared to the real wealth that is there, I could point out some things to the Treasurer. For example, in his budget he reannounced $30 million for the northern Ontario heritage fund.

Let us put this in perspective. Kimberly-Clark, James River and Boise Cascade all have mills in northern Ontario. They are the fourth, sixth and ninth largest American forest products companies respectively. They had a combined 1987 net profit of $678 million based on combined sales of over $13 billion. The sales of those three corporations based in northern Ontario are equal to one third of Ontario’s budget.

Great Lakes Forest Products, one of the largest employers in the northwest, made over $96 million in 1987, more than tripling its 1986 profit. Abitibi-Price, the world’s largest producer of newsprint, made over $125 million in 1987. Inco and Falconbridge profits are way up, and if members look at the price of nickel, they can see why. From Manitouwadge and Hemlo, represented by a very capable member, my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) -- Noranda has extensive forestry and mining interests in the north; its 1987 earnings were $343 million, three times those of 1986.

1610

The reason I raise these points is to point out two trends. Resource companies have weathered the recession years of the early 1980s and are making lots of profit with better times yet to come. But while the pillars of the northern Ontario resource economy are doing well, what is the bottom line for this government?

Will this government contemplate measures that would return some of that wealth to the people of northern Ontario who produce the wealth? The Liberals argue: “No, you can’t tax the resource companies during hard times because it might put them out of business. Jobs will go. Communities might disappear.” And in the good times? “Well, you can’t tax them either because then the bad times might come back.” It is a very strange argument. It means: “Keep your hands off. Leave things as they are.”

In 1988, the Liberal government has put a siphon directly into the pockets of working people in northern Ontario, and those pockets will soon be empty if this government keeps up.

To arrive at their healthy profit picture, resource companies have performed major surgery on their workforces. Thousands of miners, mill workers and loggers have been the victims. Many have left the north, leading to a depopulation trend. Many have stayed, but they have pushed the Statistics Canada numbers to at least twice that of southern Ontario. Raising the sales tax will hit those unemployed especially hard. In Sudbury, we have at least twice as high an unemployment rate as in Toronto.

Raising the tax on gasoline is particularly onerous. Gas prices are already higher in the north. Northerners have to travel farther distances. Public transit is not as developed as in the south, so that people rely more on their automobiles. For three years we have been calling on this government to at least equalize the gas prices between the north and the south. If I recall correctly, there was a private member’s motion, put by a Conservative when the Conservatives were in power, that the Liberals supported, to equalize the prices between northern and southern Ontario. They have done it in Nova Scotia. Why we cannot do it in Ontario is beyond my comprehension.

Four budgets later, after the Liberals talked about it, they have done nothing to lower gas prices in the north, and with gas tax increases of one cent per litre on unleaded and four cents per litre on leaded, they have hurt, not helped northerners.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Nova Scotia controls the prices and they’re the highest in Canada, much higher than in northern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: They equalized the prices.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes, they equalized the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: No. We would not have to raise --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: That does show you how the Treasurer’s mind works, though, Mr. Speaker.

If the Liberals are serious about northern Ontario, they are going to have to start feeding back some of the wealth that is created there. They are not doing it now. It is ridiculous. Instead of that, the Liberals reannounced their $30 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund. It has been announced twice. They already owe us $60 million, plus $34 million from the softwood lumber tax, and what are they giving us? Thirty million dollars. The government owes us two years of the northern Ontario heritage fund, and it owes us the softwood lumber tax, and what does it give us?

Mr. Smith: What about all of the jobs going up north?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: I am having trouble coping with that interjection from the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith), who suggests that the government take all the jobs back. Is the member suggesting that as government policy?

Mr. Smith: It was just an interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Just an interjection, and not a very enlightened one either.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his remarks and ignore the interjections.

Mr. Laughren: What was so offensive and so insulting to northern Ontario about the Treasurer’s announcement was that he put it in 12-year terms: not just $30 million a year, but a $360-million, 12-year fund. Of course, it breaks down to $30 million per year, which has been announced twice already. But not only that; if they even live up to that promise, by the year 2000 -- 12 years from now -- that $30 million will be worth a little over $16 million. That is what they are promising. It really and truly was an insult to northern Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: As a matter of fact, Parry Sound is so anxious to be considered part of northern Ontario, we have a special bill before the House so they can share in the largess.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, I may even take part in that debate, because I am going to ask the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) what is so attractive about being part of the north these days. He may have some questions on that himself.

The other promise that was broken, of course, was the softwood lumber tax. The Treasurer has truly been -- I had better search for the right word here or you will throw me out, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer has truly played games with this fund. We were told that money would go into communities in northern Ontario. There is now something like $34 million or $35 million: total and absolute nonsense.

I would never accuse the Treasurer of lying to the people of Ontario, but he has come as close to lying to the people of the north on this one as anybody possibly could, because the north was told it was getting that money and it never got it. It never did get it. It truly is an insult to northern Ontario.

Let me quote the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who just happens to be in the chamber today. He was speaking to the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers’ Association on April 23, 1987, almost exactly a year ago. He said, “As the Premier noted earlier this year, our first concern and our first priority for use of the money from the tax is to minimize the disruptions in unemployment in the sawmilling communities of northern Ontario.”

There have been 500 stud-mill workers laid off since then and nothing has been put back into those communities from that fund. Total nonsense. The Treasurer has truly betrayed the north with that fund. He has betrayed the north in two ways. One is the northern heritage fund, which he announced twice to be $30 million and delivered only $30 million; that is betraying us to the tune of $30 million. Second, the softwood lumber tax, which is over $30 million, has not been returned to those communities in northern Ontario. We have been doubly betrayed by this Treasurer, and the north will not forget it.

The other thing: He said there is going to be $12 million in new money for highways in northern Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is $118 million, of which we allocate $ 100 million for highways in northern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: No, that is not true. The Treasurer is twisting the facts again. There was already $106 million, and the Treasurer allocated an additional $12 million for roads. The Treasurer obviously flies in northern Ontario and does not drive, because according to municipal engineers, that will build us somewhere between six and 12 miles of highway. Boy, what a decision the Treasurer is going to have to make, picking out those six to 12 miles. Will they be in six different locations or 12 different locations? Will it be all one, long, 12-mile section?

The Treasurer does not fool northern Ontario citizens by telling them they are getting $360 million when he means $30 million, and he does not fool them by saying he is going to build six to 12 new miles of road. That is totally ridiculous.

We in the north feel this government has put the north on hold. And as I have said earlier, we are going to hang up on the Treasurer.

1620

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Under our leadership, the north is going ahead --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: That is right, and you are penalizing people who live in the north because of that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Good jobs and high pay, good education, good roads --

Mr. Laughren: The resource industries are booming, but the government’s actions are not.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: -- mediocre representation in some instances.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer obviously feels sensitive, and I would suspect even guilty, about what was in his budget for northern Ontario. I have no idea why the Minister for Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) continues to stay in that portfolio.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The most popular man in the north. He’s been elected three times already.

Mr. Laughren: That is right, and I do not know why he continues to serve you the way he does, because if I were that minister and the Treasurer did that to me, I would tell you to find a new Minister of Northern Development.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I believe a lot of things he says are right, but not that one.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it is absolutely true. I would not be part of the insult, and the Minister of Northern Development in fact becomes an accomplice to the insult by accepting it and, indeed, trying to sell this obnoxious budget to northern Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: A great leader and spokesman for the north; the most popular politician in northern Ontario. If I were you, it would make my hair turn grey.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please ignore the interjections and address the remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: I did not make the Treasurer’s hair turn grey, but he made mine turn grey, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case.

I want to take just a moment on the health care system in the province. If there is one other area where the Liberals have broken their promise, it is on how they would treat the health care system.

Last December the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) said, “For too long the Health ministry could just as easily have been known as the ministry of illness or the ministry of institutions.” She also said that her ministry had “made a commitment to redirect our efforts away from simply the treatment of illness and towards the promotion of health and prevention of disease.”

Where in this budget is there any indication of that? Where? There is absolutely none. I do not blame the Treasurer for shaking his head. What total nonsense. It has nothing to do with the promotion of health and prevention of disease. There was nothing in the budget to expand community health clinics; nothing specifically for health promotion; nothing to improve access for women or for immigrants or for northerners; nothing for community mental health.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: An almost-$13-million expenditure makes a lot of people better.

Mr. Laughren: They can put the ads in, but if they do not back it up with a commitment in the budget, what are they doing? It is all smoke and mirrors.

There is nothing to support independent living for seniors and disabled people.

The Liberal’s inability and unwillingness to make tough decisions is underlined by the fact that the proportion of the health budget that goes to the community and public health has actually fallen in the last decade. Community and public health accounted for 4.2 per cent of health spending in 1976-77, four per cent in 1977-78 and 3.7 per cent in 1987-88. The percentage is declining, so that is not a commitment to the promotion of health and prevention of disease.

At the same time, the amount going to what are known as the fat cats of the system has gone up. Doctors and other practitioners got 33 per cent of the health budget in 1987-88, compared to only 24 per cent 10 years ago.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The number’s in the budget.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, 2.7 per cent, up from 2.3 per cent; and drug companies get 4.3 per cent through the Ontario drug benefit plan, up from 1.9 per cent 10 years ago.

The Treasurer and his Minister of Health pretend to be doing something about changing the health care system, but they are not doing it. They just keep loading up the fat cats of the system. That is what they are doing. They have made absolutely no commitment to the promotion of health or prevention of disease in this budget, absolutely none, no commitment whatsoever.

I would like to turn for a few moments -- and I will definitely leave enough time for the Conservative critic to deal with his remarks -- to the Premier’s Council report. I really must touch on that, because if it is, as the Premier says it is, the blueprint for Ontario, their agenda for Ontario, then it is an important document. Now we will see.

First let me say there is much in the report we agree with. There are sentiments on behalf of workers who lose their jobs because of industrial restructuring; there is a proposal to increase worker participation; and there are recommendations to improve the research and development capacity of private industry.

But I should say quite clearly that we believe the priorities in this report are backwards. Instead of asking how people in Ontario can be employed, the reports asks how big companies in Ontario can get bigger. Instead of proposing measures to help people in small business and the regions, the report dismisses such assistance as, and I quote, “social programs.” Instead of helping to provide economic security for working families, this report carries vague promises for worker adjustment.

Let us look at what the report has to say. In the first chapter, page 38, it states:

“Raising the value for every hour worked in the Ontario economy should be the primary economic goal for the province. With greater productivity, the same amount of labour can yield more goods and services. If employment levels are maintained as productivity increases, the result is greater material wealth.”

At best, the report is calling for jobless growth. At worst, it is calling for huge layoffs. The guiding principle of the report is that productivity should come ahead of employment, a principle motivated by its high-tech, big-business, multinational emphasis.

We in this party believe this philosophy is inhumane, unjust and wrongheaded. We believe that a full employment policy should be the cornerstone of Ontario’s economic policy, and countries like Sweden show the wisdom of that approach.

It is really strange. The report tried to hold up Sweden as the model to which we should aspire, yet this government is the kind of government that would not touch the very things that have made Sweden the model to which we would supposedly aspire. It does not believe in them. I have never heard the words “full employment” uttered by this government, yet that is the cornerstone of the Swedish economy. This government would not do that. It is just smoke and mirrors when it talks about the Swedish model.

In showing the failings of this Peterson big-business approach to the economy, I would like to talk about the alternative economic vision which has been put forward by both us here at the provincial level and the federal New Democrats. This approach is a three-pronged, comprehensive strategy aimed at encouraging diversification, innovation and self-direction at the community level, industrial and technological excellence at the national level and global co-operation at the international level.

First, let us look at the Premier’s Council report. The report calls on resource and mature manufacturing industries to make massive investments in plant and equipment to produce higher-value exportable goods. It makes admirable comments on the need to improve education and the training of the workforce. But what happens to the thousands of workers who are losing their jobs and who will continue to lose jobs from this industrial adjustment? The report is silent. It says: “Wait for our future report on a comprehensive people strategy.”

This emphasis on technology and the neglect of people is central to the economic initiatives contained in the budget. The manufacturing and processing cost adjustment and the research and development super allowance, both announced in last week’s budget, will give tax breaks to companies investing in high technology. This will actually encourage large manufacturing concerns to produce more goods with fewer people. At the same time, the government is eliminating its tax exemption for new businesses, a measure that will increase the tax burden on thousands of new small businesses, businesses which will create the bulk of future jobs.

Employment is an afterthought in the Premier’s Council report, because it ignores the biggest employer of all, the service sector. To quote the report: “An efficient nontrading service sector contributes significantly to our standard of living, but it is no substitute for high productivity in our trading businesses.”

In other words, since service industries do not export, they do not deserve attention. Yet according to the Ontario government’s own study of the service sector in 1986, this part of the economy accounts for 73 per cent of all employment, 70 per cent of the gross provincial product and 80 per cent of all new jobs that will be created during the next decade. Despite the enormous importance of service industries to the Ontario economy, the Premier’s Council virtually ignores the most important recommendation from the government’s own service sector study, namely, that all future economic development polices should fully recognize the importance of the service industries to the prosperity of this province.

I do not know how the Premier’s Council could take a serious look at the future of Ontario and not take into consideration the service sector or that service sector study that was done. To ignore the service sector is to ignore young people and people who live outside the manufacturing centres of southern Ontario.

1630

Most important, though, this disregard ignores the problems of women workers. More than 80 per cent of all the women employed in the province work in the service sector. To focus on high-tech manufacturing is to relegate women workers to low-paid, dead-end jobs. There is no mention of that in the Treasurer’s budget, no mention of that in the Premier’s Council report. It is simply letting them go. Instead of treating the service sector as somehow surplus to the real sectors of the economy, the government should start finding ways of ensuring that there are high-quality, well-paying service jobs in the future.

What about the economic sectors that the report does deal with? We commend the Premier’s Council for wanting to improve technology in manufacturing, forestry, mining and other primary industries and for wanting to move to higher-value products, such as specialty papers in the pulp and paper industry, for example. But the economic recipe in this report will mean rising unemployment in northern Ontario, while a high-tech sector in the south grows out of government handouts and tax breaks. What is more, this high-tech sector will be so capital rich and labour poor that it will create huge corporate profits without employing large numbers of people.

It is understandable why this vision was put forward in this report. Look at the people who sat on the Premier’s Council: Robert Franklin of Ontario Hydro; Helmut Hofmann of Devtech Corp., one of Ontario’s leading military suppliers to the Pentagon; Norman Kissick of Union Carbide; George Peapples of General Motors; David Vice of Northern Telecom. All of these executives are furiously trying to develop high-tech manufacturing and design which will reduce their need for people. Is it any wonder they are calling for tax breaks for this sector?

Let us take a look at Northern Telecom, which is held up as a kind of model for the economy that the Premier’s Council wants to develop. The report says, “Northern Telecom has been the breeding ground for a generation of...entrepreneurs.”

Let us look at the other side of Northern Telecom. In its zeal to produce more with less, it has cut employment in Brampton from 2,575 to 1,800 at present. In addition, it has laid off people at London and Belleville. Employment at the company peaked in 1984, with 46,900 workers.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Leo Gerard is on the council.

Mr. Laughren: That is right. By 1986 this was down by 800, and further cuts were made last year. This is not the kind of model we want to look forward to if we want to ensure safe, secure jobs for Ontario workers.

Let us look at another example of the big business --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Leo Gerard is one of the 50 most influential people in Toronto.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it is good to welcome the Treasurer back. If the Treasurer and his Premier with their council report are serious about upgrading development in the province and about more high tech, more value added, I have one challenge to the Treasurer: I know this is not question period, but will he now, in view of that council’s report, make a commitment that Falconbridge will be required to refine its ore in Sudbury rather than ship it all to Norway for refining? If he is serious about adding value to the resource industries, there is no better example of how he could do it. Right now the Mining Act, section 104, if I recall correctly, says that ores in Ontario must be refined in Ontario, but they get a ministerial exemption, or a Lieutenant Governor in Council exemption. There is an opportunity there for the Premier to put his mouth where his rhetoric is. Does that make sense?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not quite.

Mr. Laughren: Not quite, no. Well, to do something about a problem he pretends he cares about. Maybe that is better.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is better.

Mr. Laughren: Let us look at another example of the big business future that the Premier’s Council has in store for us. Let us look at Abitibi-Price, the biggest newsprint manufacturer in the world and a big employer in northern Ontario. Bernd Koken, president and chief executive officer of the company, sat on the Premier’s Council. Presumably, he stands behind the report when it makes this comment about the pulp and paper industry, and I quote: “the central challenge facing Ontario is how to increase the value-added contribution of the province’s forestry resource.”

I want the Treasurer to listen to this. I do not expect the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) to listen, but I expect the Treasurer to listen; I really want the Treasurer to hear this. This is what the president of Abitibi-Price, who sits on the Premier’s Council said: “the central challenge facing Ontario is how to increase the value-added contribution of the province’s forestry resource.”

We know that Abitibi is upgrading its Canadian mills, but we were surprised to learn just lately, four days after the Premier unveiled that report, that the company will be building a $500-million newsprint mill in Venezuela. The industry believes it will be the cheapest mill in the world to operate. When it comes on stream in the 1990s, there is no question it is going to put pressure on Canadian newsprint mills -- in fact, including Abitibi’s own mills.

This is what Mr. Koken had to say to shareholders on Monday, April 18: “Our businesses have to be located in places other than in Canada. It is no longer sufficient to just have markets in other countries. True globalization of our businesses means having our facilities, production, manpower and technology in strategic locations around the world.”

Koken’s views and Abitibi’s actions are perfectly consistent with the Premier’s Council report. If productivity is the end-all and be-all of economic strategy, it makes sense to move your production to countries where there is cheap labour, resources or technology.

We believe the policies of the Premier’s Council will simply lead to more Abitibis and more Northern Telecoms: more multinational corporations moving their production outside of Canada, more workers thrown out of work from technological change and more workers living below the poverty line in dead-end jobs simply because the government refuses to pay any attention whatsoever to the service sector. In short, we will have a society in which there is a cadre of highly educated, well-paid technical personnel at the top and a growing mass of marginalized, unemployed and poorly paid people at the bottom. That is the vision of the Premier’s Council.

We believe there is an alternative to this strategy. To borrow a phrase from -- I do not want anybody to get frightened by this -- a United States socialist called Michael Harrington, whom I hope we have all read, we can call this kind of strategy “growth through justice.” In short, it means securing full employment by ensuring economic justice for local communities, unemployed workers, women and minorities.

This national and provincial approach was outlined by Steven Langdon, our federal trade critic, in January. It hinges on local communities being able to develop strong secondary manufacturing based on our local resources, on local development boards working to suggest innovative community-owned enterprises and on full employment policies at the federal and provincial level to retrain workers displaced by outmoded resource and manufacturing industries.

It depends on a doubling of our research and development commitment and new programs to end illiteracy, train workers for needed skills and retrain workers at different ages in their lives. It also depends on incentives for domestic investment will work for Canada. Finally, we want a managed trade policy instead of the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement, which would be so damaging to our society.

With these measures, Ontario and Canada would have security amid change and we would have strong, fully employed workers able to compete in both domestic and international markets. The philosophy of this approach was summed up by Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 when he said, “We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.”

I want to draw my remarks to a close, but I did want to lay before the assembly, and the Treasurer in particular, our views on the Ontario budget and our concern with what we see as a mean streak that runs throughout it.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Laughren moves that the resolution moved by the Treasurer and seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, on Monday, April 25 “that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government” be amended by deleting the words following that and adding thereto the following:

“This House, recognizing that the 1988 budget fails to adopt tax fairness as its overriding objective and fails to adequately direct its programs to those areas most in need, condemns the government for:

“Increasing the most regressive of taxes, the retail sales tax;

“Increasing the personal income tax in such a way that middle-income earners bear the brunt of the increases while wealthier Ontarians receive the benefits;

1640

“Failing to introduce a minimum corporate income tax to ensure that corporations pay their fair share;

“Worsening the situation for senior citizens in Ontario by failing to provide any relief from the retail sales tax increase;

“Failing to eliminate the Ontario personal income tax for those living at or below the poverty line;

“Failing to guarantee accessibility to the health care system by eliminating the Ontario health insurance plan tax for all those living below the poverty line;

“Refusing to make home ownership a real possibility for first-time home buyers by its failure to introduce a real estate speculation tax;

“Failing to treat the people of northern Ontario fairly and failing to provide for adequate funding for the development of the north;

“Exorbitant tax increases in every major tax paid by individuals and families in Ontario while increasing the tax breaks going to corporations;

“Failing to stem the ever-increasing share of the health care budget which is going to the fat cats of the health care system -- doctors, laboratories and drug companies -- while failing to increase funding for community and public health care; and

“Failing to devote more of the budget to the provision of adequate and affordable housing.

“Therefore, this government lacks the confidence of this House.”

Are there speakers on the debate?

Mr. Harris: Normally when one rises to one’s feet to comment on a bill or a budget or a motion, one says, “I am pleased to join in the debate.” I am not very pleased today. I am pleased, of course, to have the opportunity, but I am not very pleased, obviously, with the subject matter before us.

Hon. Mr. Elston: You are lucky for the opportunity.

Mr. Harris: What is that newfound riding the member is from? Is it just Bruce now? The member for Bruce says I am lucky to have the opportunity and, indeed, he is right. I am very fortunate to have the opportunity to be elected to this Legislature. I have always considered it an honour. I consider it a privilege and one that I do not take lightly.

Today I am going to pay back the people of Nipissing, as they have asked me to do since last Wednesday, by informing the Treasurer exactly what the people in North Bay whom I talked to on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday felt about his budget, and certainly what the people in Sturgeon Falls had to say about the budget. I was in Sturgeon Falls on Thursday. To those people who missed me in Sturgeon Falls, I really was there.

I also speak on behalf of the people of northern Ontario and, of course, on behalf of the people of Ontario. Because of not a new but a traditional budgetary policy, if you like, that has been adopted by our parliamentary system, the rest of the 94-odd members are all muzzled, and whether they like it or not they have to say, “Well, do your best to grin and bear it and support good old Bob.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The alternation of speakers doesn’t give our members much of a chance, since you have to have a third of them.

Mr. Harris: Well, the first shall be last and the last shall be first -- something like that. Is that it?

I want to say that what we are dealing with today is that the Ontario taxpayer has been presented, if you like, with the bill. The bill has come for electing a Peterson Liberal majority government. The tab turned out to be $1.3 billion in new tax increases each and every year, compounded, of course, as time goes on.

That works out, as has been pointed out by one of my colleagues, to $13.4 million for every Liberal member in the House. So all of the Liberal members who are in the House individually are responsible for $13.4 million of this additional tax increase. I guess the people of Ontario have to be extra delighted that there was not another Liberal brought back here from London North, and in fact, sitting in the gallery is the new member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), who has saved us from another $13.4-million tax increase.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You won’t give her any responsibility over there. You keep her in the back row and won’t let her speak on education issues.

Mr. Harris: Well, I want to thank my colleagues. They had commented to me before I rose to my feet today to say: “The phones are ringing off the hook. People back home are absolutely furious with this budget, so Mike, you go ahead and give your remarks in the House. We will continue to answer the phones back in” --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It can’t be in Nipissing. Everywhere but Nipissing the people might have a complaint.

Mr. Harris: Well, I will have some comments later on Nipissing.

About the $13.4 million each, it is these Liberals, each one of them individually and collectively, through their campaign literature, through their Premier, through the Treasurer, who did not once during an entire election campaign mention the term “tax increase.” In fact, in the campaign they bragged about not raising taxes in the budget they had brought in and they left that expectation, “We’ll give you more of the same: no tax increases.”

What happened? Nearly every possible tax source has now been attacked with a vengeance.

The Peterson government’s “elect us now, pay us later” style of budgets really, in my view, can best be described by one word, and I want to refer to that word. It is called deceit. I predict that is a word that Ontario voters will become very familiar with during this government’s term of office. To taxpayers the Premier says, “Thanks a billion for your support.”

Mr. Ballinger: What is your point?

Mr. Harris: If the member does not like the word “deceit,” I do not like having to use it, but I will tell members that there was a by-election in London North and there were two issues. There was Sunday shopping before and after the election of September 10, and there were tax increases before and after the election of September 10. Members saw what the people of London North thought about those two issues and whether they thought there was deceit.

I want to outline briefly some of the budget lowlights that were contained in what was really not the Treasurer’s budget. I said once before when I saw a budget of this current Treasurer that, in my view, it was not Bob Nixon. Maybe I am wrong, because time after time he continues to come out of the gate, but as this Treasurer has probably brought in his last or second-last budget, I would prefer to think of the legacy of his long political career as: “Well, he was a loyal Liberal to the end. He did what David Peterson told him to do. He didn’t like it; it wasn’t what he would have done; it’s not what any fiscally responsible person would have done. But at least he did stay loyal to his leader, however misguided that leader was.”

It is the Premier’s budget that we are dealing with here today, and I think Ontario taxpayers should be told that government revenues will increase 8.2 per cent, or $2.8 billion, over last year, without any tax increase at all. I think the people should know that. This government had an 8.2 per cent increase over last year, a $2.8-billion increase over last year without any tax increases.

1650

I think Ontario taxpayers should be told that the Peterson Liberals overspent their budget plan last year for the third consecutive year. So what do we expect this year? What do we expect? They have significantly overspent the budget plan. Ontario taxpayers should be told that Liberal spending will increase by 8.6 per cent. That is before we see what happens during the year. Remember, last year they overspent by $500 million; the year before that, it was about $1 billion. Assuming by some miracle -- none of the players have changed; none of the attitudes have changed -- he comes in on budget, spending will increase by 8.6 per cent, about double the rate of inflation.

Mr. Ballinger: The communities are the better for it.

Mr. Harris: The Liberals justify tax increases -- l want to talk about that -- by saying extra money is needed to build more schools, roads and hospitals. Quite frankly, this brings me back to the word “deceit” once again. Capital spending on things like schools, roads and hospitals has not even kept up to the rate of inflation. The other spending on things like civil servants, big government and the Premier’s helicopter flights to Liberal meetings has increased by over twice the rate of inflation.

I want to talk about this infrastructure spending. Members can refer to the budget if they have it. It is page 50 of this year’s budget and page 50 of last year’s budget. This is the great capital spending. “Hospitals, schools, roads, transportation; that is why I have to grab all the revenue.” When you look on page 50 of the 1987 budget, capital spending --

An hon. member: It is 1987-88.

Mr. Harris: It is 1987; 1987-88, last year’s budget. Capital spending is $2,720,000,000. Then you look at page 50 of this year’s budget and capital spending is $2,803,000,000. The difference is $83 million. So the increase in capital -- infrastructure, hospitals, schools, roads that whole thing all lumped together -- is up $83 million, about three per cent. The spending side is up about $3 billion, about 9.5 per cent, so they should not tell us they are building hospitals, schools and transportation. They are not keeping close to inflation on the capital side. That was not the reason for the tax grab.

I want to take a look at page 50 again. Remember the $83 million; that is how much more page 50 says they are spending. I want to look at one item. It is called “Government Services.” Last year, it was $107 million; this year it is $190 million. It is up $83 million in Government Services. Everything else is flat-lined.

What does Government Services spend money on capital for? More buildings to house civil servants. That is what they spend money on, more buildings to house civil servants. That is what Government Services spends its money on. They do not spend it on roads. They do not spend it on hospitals. They do not spend it on schools. They spend it on more facilities to house civil servants. Everything else is flat-lined.

Mr. Ballinger: This speech will sound good in Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: I will be talking about Nipissing.

That is the second deceit. The people, the Ontario taxpayers, should also know that 88 per cent of the new tax grab is going to pay for increases in big government operations and big government spending. That is why on budget day I called it a “KGB budget” -- keep government big. That is all it is for. The capital is for more civil servants. The spending is to keep government big.

We think the taxpayers should be told about this because taxpayers are paying the price. Taxpayers should be told how the government took credit, finally, on the last day as the new budget came in, for $350 million in in-year savings, which means it could not figure out some way to spend it fast enough, like the $30-million northern heritage fund. Can members imagine? In northern Ontario, with the needs we have there, with the disparity between north and south, they could not think of a way to spend $30 million, so they gave it back to the Treasury.

Mr. Ballinger: Where’s René?

Mr. Harris: I do not know where the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) is, but I will say he is a joke and an embarrassment representing northern Ontario in that cabinet.

In this budget, the government predicts $500 million in in-year savings. The government says it is going to save $500 million, money it plans to spend but will not be able to get around to.

We think taxpayers should be told what that means. It means that as the ministers go around the province and announce an increase in funding: “We have some money here in capital,” or, “We have some money and we’re going to have this new program,” somewhere around there somebody is out there fibbing to the tune of $500 million; or if they are all telling the truth the deficit really is not $473 million, it is $973 million. One of those two things is the only explanation for that $500 million. In my view, that is deceit.

The deceit goes on. When I commented to some of the media about the northern heritage announcement, I said to them, “As long as you guys print this garbage on budget day, they’re going to keep expanding it.” So they have a three-year program, a five-year program. Two years ago, they had a 10-year program so they could get it up to $1 billion. This year they went to 12 years. I guess next year they will go to 20.

Twelve years: The budget was so embarrassing for northern Ontario they wanted to get some kind of headline back in northern Ontario that said, “A $360-million fund established for northern Ontario.” We know that is not true. It was all designed to counteract the negative impact of taking away from northern Ontario. I call that deceit.

Mr. Ballinger: We call that boring.

Mr. Harris: What is really happening is that the Liberals have announced for the third time the creation of a fund that received $30 million last year. The Liberals did not spend one dime of that money. This year, the fund is not receiving $360 million. It will not receive $60 million to make up for last year.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I really think the Speaker has some responsibility to maintain decorum on all sides of the House. There is a rebellion over there. I find it increasingly repulsive that the member sitting in seat 39 continues to have these outbursts and you do not bring him to order.

The Acting Speaker: As to the information that was brought to my attention by the member for Markham, I remind all members that they should try to listen very carefully to the speaker with respect to this and try to contain themselves.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has the floor and would like to complete his speech.

Mr. Harris: I said the fund will not receive $360 million, as the headline-grabbing announcement was supposed to suggest. It will not receive $60 million to make up for the $30 million it took last year. The Liberals have said it will receive $30 million. They said it last year and we did not get it, but we are going to see what happens.

Then we found out that not only is it bad enough it is flat-lined from last year, but the government came out and what it said, effectively, to the people of Ontario was: “We don’t care what happens in northern Ontario. Not one more cent for the next 11 years. That’s it.” No, not inflation. “If there’s a downturn in the economy, don’t come back. We serve notice right now, not one more cent.” That is what they told the people of northern Ontario.

1700

Then, of course, we found out there was more deceit. We found out that $5 million of the program would go to replace money already going into another program, into the northern Ontario regional development program. So really it is $25 million, a $5-million cut from last year, and I guess a flat line throughout, although maybe we can get it back to the $30 million at some point, we are told. Well, so much for that particular program.

I think this budget is an insult to those who have worked so hard and invested so much to create the strong, healthy and vibrant economy we now enjoy. I am not talking about government. I am not talking about the federal government; I am not talking about the provincial government; I am not talking about any level of government. I am talking about those individuals who go back to school to upgrade themselves, who work hard -- some of them take two jobs -- who invest and take risks in a business and work 70, 80 and 90 hours a week to make it go and make it successful. They are the people who create the wealth, and governments, all governments, diminish wealth. Of course, this government is the master at diminishing wealth.

People in the private sector create the wealth that can be shared for our society, and government, when it cannot control its own expenditures, punishes the creators of the wealth. It has done it as it has never been done before in this 1988-89 budget.

Mr. Cousens: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harris: The member for Markham is on tomorrow with as many questions as he wants.

I want to say that the Peterson Liberals seem to have adopted what I described as an old, I say “old” New Democratic Party socialist philosophy, that if you throw enough money at problems they will go away.

We have seen a massive increase in health care funding, the socialization, in fact, of the entire health care system. What was once the finest health care system in the world most people do not think is as good as it was four years ago. Even the Premier himself thinks it is heading for disaster. I agree. Our health care problems are not better; they are worse. Despite the biggest tax grab in Ontario’s history, probably because of the factors behind it, there are articles in the paper today talking about major cutbacks in services for our hospitals, major cutbacks this year.

Despite throwing billions of dollars at problems in housing, our problems have turned into crises. There were problems in housing when this government took office; now they are a crisis. They have thrown more money in there. What has happened? Vacancy rates are worse. The affordability problem is worse. The backlog after backlog in some convoluted rent control process they brought in is far worse. They have thrown money there.

They have thrown money at our problems in education, an education system that was the finest in the world when we left office. We are again heading for crisis. Qualified secondary school graduates cannot get into university; 10 per cent of them cannot get in this year. Most people say the problem is much worse and we are heading for a crisis. Community colleges are cutting back. Elementary students spend years in portables in a system that has become increasingly dependent on municipal tax revenues for survival.

We had a government that came in when the provincial share of education funding was in the range of 48 or 49 per cent. We had a government that came in under a promise of taking it to 60 per cent. Now, systematically, they have reduced it to about 41 per cent. This budget takes it down further again.

The underlying problem in each area of concern, whether it is taxation, the civil service, the operations of government or the delivery of health, education, regional development or any other service, is spending.

I do not believe the government can continue to throw money at these problems and treat them in the same old way. I think times change. I think situations change. I do not think anybody thinks the economy in Ontario today is the same as it was five years ago, but to a great extent we are throwing more money at those same programs. It is not how much; it is how. It is the wise use of spending, the effective use of spending, the responsible use of taxpayers’ dollars and the management of the funds we have available.

Our party has repeatedly condemned this government for its lack of fiscal control, for its inability to stay within budget -- over budget by $500 million last year and by $1 billion the year before -- for its lack of accurate reporting that is meaningful to the people of Ontario and the committees of this Legislature; for its failure to review and assess and evaluate programs to see if they are working, if they are relevant before it throws more money into those programs.

Progressive Conservatives presented the government with a number of options and suggestions for expenditure control following the prebudget consultations in March. Every one of them was ignored, and now in April, and for the foreseeable future, taxpayers are paying the price.

What were the resolutions the government ignored? One was a private member’s resolution I brought in requiring sunsetting. All it required was that we be open, that the Legislature take a look at all the existing expenditure programs. That was all we asked in that private member’s resolution. What did the government members do? With the exception of one, who I felt exercised responsible judgement, who did not just listen to what some hackneyed parliamentary assistant said: “Ah, we don’t want to go with that. It came from Harris” --he looked at it. He said: “That makes sense. All he’s asking for is that we review the existing programs and make a commitment to review new ones five years down the road to see if they’re still relevant.” That was rejected.

Mr. Runciman: Who said that?

Mr. Harris: That was the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), whom I admire for taking the time to read the resolution instead of just saying, “Well, how are we directed in order to vote on this one?”

I want to mention a few of the other suggestions we made. I understand that the government members could not accept them all because some said things that as individuals they might agree with but that their Premier does not agree with, and talked about fiscal responsibility. Here are all the things that were rejected by the members.

“The Ministry of Treasury and Economics initiate a review of the expenditures of all ministries to determine where spending could be reduced.” Does that sound so threatening to the Premier and to the Treasurer? It does not even say the parliament; it does not say the Legislature. It just says the ministry should initiate a review and determine where spending can be reduced. No, they voted that down en masse, and the Treasurer of course ignored it.

“The government should continue to hold the rate of growth in expenditures below the rate of growth in revenues.” It sounds fairly responsible to me; rejected totally out of hand.

“Pending the outcome of the expenditure program review...the government should consider flat-lining direct operating expenditures where possible in order to adequately fund priority areas.” That means here is a program that is not working very well. Let us not throw a whole batch more in it till we can get a good look at it and see if it is necessary, so we can put extra into other areas. That is how we find money.

“Any in-year revenue windfalls be applied to the reduction of the net cash requirement,” and there have been windfalls virtually every year the government has been in office. That means the government does not automatically spend them before anybody finds out it has them. It puts them towards the deficit. Then if somebody justifies increased spending, that is fine.

“The Ministry of Treasury and Economics immediately undertake a critical review of all Ontario tax expenditures to determine the degree to which the various programs are achieving socioeconomic program objectives.” That means the tax expenditures are those things that the government does not collect tax for as an incentive, or to give money back to people, like the seniors’ tax credit; that is a tax expenditure.

1710

Mr. Runciman: That’s a good program.

Mr. Harris: I think it is a good program. If we took a look at it and it was a good program, it would stand the test of time. I know some of the things I am saying people tell me are politically sacrosanct and cannot be talked about. But my father does not need that money. He thinks it is a joke that the government is giving it to him. There are many people out there who think it is a joke. They take it. They cash the cheque. I hope he saves it so I can get it eventually. I should not say that. I hope he enjoys it, but he does not need it. All that said was, “Could we look at the tax expenditures? Could we look at some of the tax breaks given to industry? Are they relevant today?”

Maybe there was a tax break in the early 1980s, when we were in a recession, which was brought in and said, “Companies, will you please invest in this? We’ll give you a tax break to help put some people to work.” Is that the situation today? I do not think so. All the recommendation said was, “Could you look at it?” It was totally rejected by the Liberals.

I think members get the idea. There were a few other recommendations. All of them dealt with reviewing, taking a look at expenditures of the government to see where some money could be saved. They were all totally rejected and they have been rejected by this Treasurer.

I want to say that this budget is irresponsible because Liberal spending policies are irresponsible. They are totally irresponsible. I think it is irresponsible for this government today or in the future to continually talk about underfunding in the past, because by David Peterson’s Liberal standards it appears the whole world and everything in it is underfunded. That is the standard argument.

Our party is 100 per cent united in its opposition to the Liberal gas tax hike. We are 100 per cent united in opposition to the Liberal retail sales tax increase to eight per cent; to the Liberal hike in personal income taxes; to the Liberal efforts to rob Ontario taxpayers of the benefits of federal tax reform, and to the uncontrolled and misdirected Liberal spending and expenditure policies.

The Peterson Liberals do not face the people for another three years, probably. But taxpayers know this is the real Liberal election budget. It is what the last election was all about. It is what Liberals are all about. It is our job to make sure that people do not forget.

I want to talk about a few specific things. I want to mention northern Ontario briefly. The other day I mentioned that this government has a strange view of regional development. Regional development usually means that if things are going really well in one part of the province, we will take a little bit there to help an area where it is not going as well.

I would ask you, Madam Speaker, and members of this chamber, to reflect on whether you honestly believe that things are going as well in northern Ontario as they are in southern Ontario. Are things improved in northern Ontario over a few years ago? Yes, they are. But not near the vast improvement we have seen in southern Ontario. So what happened in this budget from last year with the north? The northern heritage fund took a $5 million cut, from $30 million to $25 million.

The money we did not get last year was given back to Treasury. What happened with gas prices? In northern Ontario there are several factors why we pay significantly more. For one, people depend on their automobiles for far more travel. We do not have subways up there. Maybe some members who have never been there do not realize that. We do not have the mass transit systems that there are in the big cities. They are subsidized and paid for heavily by taxpayer dollars. We do not have those things, so we depend on automobile travel far more than people in southern Ontario.

Like it or not, we do not have the same disposable income, yet cars cost more because of transportation costs and the gasoline to get them there. As a result, we have a higher percentage of what are called oil burners or clunkers in northern Ontario -- that means those who use leaded gasoline -- so they are doubly hit. Gas prices in the north are about 10 cents a litre higher now. They used to be about four cents.

Mr. Laughren: Fifty cents a gallon.

Mr. Harris: Right now they are running about 10 cents, which is, as the member for Nickel Belt points out, getting close to 50 cents a gallon higher. Our tourism industry suffers because when one travels, not only does one have distances to travel to get to us but one pays 50 cents a gallon more for gasoline when there. These gas price hikes hurt us more in the north. The government took $5 million away from our northern heritage fund and refused to do anything with the $30 million export tax that it promised would go back into northern Ontario.

The sales tax impacts on us because our prices are higher in the north, because of lack of competition and because of transportation costs. That is why I say I think the Treasurer has a strange view of regional development. Here we have the south booming, the north not doing as well and, year over year, a budget that penalizes the north more than it did last year. In effect, year over year, northern Ontario is asked to help subsidize the south.

I want to talk about the job relocation program in the north. The one thing that everybody yells out like a bunch of parrots every time anyone talks about it is: “What about the relocation program? What about the jobs that are being relocated?” I want to talk about it. We are talking year over year. There has been no new relocation in this budget. We are talking about something that is three or four years old. If they want credit for it year after year for the next 50 years, fine.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: About three more years.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer says about three more years. We understand that logic but let us talk about it. What has happened since this government has taken office is that it has increased the number of civil servants by the end of this budget somewhere in excess of 8,000.

It is not relocating civil service jobs. Because the ministries are down here, the south does not need to benefit from 8,000. We are getting our share of 1,200 or 1,400 jobs in northern Ontario. It is 1,600 in the north? So out of 8,000 that leaves another 6,400 in southern Ontario.

That is all it is, the whole platform. The government can rob the north on northern heritage, it can rob the north on softwood lumber, it can take money from the north and point to the north getting its share of the number of new civil service jobs that have been created in this province. That is what it has done. We are thankful to get our share. We accept that.

1720

I tell the government, though, there are problems. The government keeps reminding everyone about the northern redevelopment program, but there are problems. It appears to me that some of the buildings being built up there are going to run $200 or $300 a foot.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Don’t you want us to spend money?

Mr. Harris: No, I do not. If the people in North Bay can get a first-class building for $16 million, they do not want to have to pay $32 million for it.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: They say they don’t want them there?

Mr. Harris: That is right. People in North Bay are the same as everywhere else. They do not like to see government money being wasted. We will see in the next two or three years how much these buildings are going to cost.

I will tell members what else it means. It is living proof of an example of how this government wastes money. When they do it there, the people of North Bay know they do it everywhere else, so I do not mind talking about it.

The Treasurer has said that Nipissing has benefited in a number of projects, and the other day I heard him rhyme off the projects that have come to Nipissing. He talked about the courthouse. That was approved under the old government.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We spend too much money.

Mr. Harris: Well, listen; the Treasurer talked about waterfront development, which was approved under the old government. The one project in North Bay and in Nipissing that was announced by the former government but that this government has not lived up to its commitment on is the new joint hospital.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Don’t skip over the Ministry of Correctional Services.

Mr. Harris: Does the Treasurer want to keep coming back to that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, you skipped over it.

Mr. Harris: I did not. I talked about the northern relocation program. Is that the answer for health care in North Bay? There will be some Correctional Services people there in a $300-a-foot building. Will that help people with their health care needs? I want to talk about health care, because that is one commitment the government has not lived up to. That is one commitment that has not been there.

There is a second commitment that affects us, particularly in my riding but in all of northeastern Ontario, and that is psychiatric services. The former government made a commitment to the people of northeastern Ontario that it would fund new beds in Timmins, in Sudbury, in Sault Ste Marie; that it would fund massive new programs for care in the community of those with mental illnesses, and that it would redevelop the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital.

At last word, I am told that the reason the North Bay joint hospital is not going ahead is that even though this government told the people there to incorporate the redeveloped psychiatric hospital in their plans, now the minister says: “No, it is not a priority. We are not proceeding with the psychiatric hospital. The number one priority is in Penetanguishene;” which I understand, but what that message is saying to the people of northeastern Ontario is: “No. We are going back on the commitment the former government made and we reconfirmed. We are not going to proceed with that commitment.”

The second thing it means, if any members are interested, is that because the commitment for the psychiatric hospital in North Bay is for after the new hospital is built, it would come about six years from today if it was announced today. That is when the commitment to the psychiatric hospital is. It means that the minister is saying there is not one single capital dollar for psychiatric health in this province for six years. That is what the government has told the people of northeastern Ontario and that is what it has told the people of North Bay.

I want to try to conclude shortly but I want to talk a little bit about control of expenditure. I have said it in this House on a number of occasions and people say: “What about the grants to North Bay industries? What about the grants in Nipissing? What about the grants in northern Ontario?” If in this economy a business cannot make it without a grant, it will never make it. If the government has to give industry grants to build in this economy, what is it going to do when there is a recession?

There is something wrong. When I said that programs should be reviewed, I meant that programs should be reviewed. I said in this House and I will repeat today that there are industries in my riding in North Bay that have got Northern Ontario Development Corp. grants or northern Ontario regional development program grants that were going ahead anyway. They do not need them. They are like my father. They say: “If they’re going to give it to me, I’ll take it. I think it’s a joke. I think it’s embarrassing, because I know they’re giving it away to everybody else who doesn’t need it too, and I have to take it just to keep even.”

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Who initiated that?

Mr. Harris: I will tell members, the Nordev program is one of the best programs that was initiated during a recession -- it started during a recession -- for northern Ontario, and I am saying they should be reviewing some of those programs. When I ask are they prepared to review some of them -- well, I do not know; I mean, what more do they want me to do? I am telling them that in my own riding they are wasting money, and I am saying it is fair game to review all those programs.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is because you went from here to there, that’s all. You keep doing it. You only changed spots.

Mr. Harris: The other thing that bothers people is the attitude that it creates.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing will please continue.

Mr. Harris: It creates an attitude among business, among people, when you throw money at them that they do not need. They say: “Well, why should we care? Why should we try to help the government control expenses? They’re going to throw it all away anyway.” They are going to take a look at the budget and they are going to say: “What did you spend last year, $3 billion? Oh, I guess it’s $3 billion plus another nine per cent this year.”

That attitude corrupts. It has corrupted every one of the caucus members over there. It has corrupted the Treasurer, because the Treasurer, as members will know, is saying substantially different things than he did a number of years ago.

Those are some of the things we are talking about.

I have some sympathy for the New Democratic Party when it talked about $100 million to remove those below the poverty line. I am the first to acknowledge that the poverty line depends on who uses it, who says it, where you live and what not, but I tell members, there is more than enough waste in this government to find $100 million without increasing taxes. The Treasurer could have taken the 8.2 per cent without any tax increases. That is about $2.6 billion. He could have found $100 million to do that.

But that was not the object of this budget. The object of this budget was to keep government big. Make people dependent on government and you can hand out more cheques. They can call on you more often. You can buy more votes. It is a philosophy, it is an attitude that I do not agree with and my party does not agree with it, and that is why I am speaking out against that attitude.

I mentioned a few other things that I want to take a look at. Let us look at pages 68 and 69 of the budget. I do not want to get into specifics. Members can all say, “Oh, Harris, what program are you going to cut?” l have told the government a few it could cut.

But does it make sense to you that, with interest rates five or six years ago, interest rates of 22 per cent and businesses going bankrupt, the economy really in a recession, driven there by Trudeau and by free-spending Liberals over a period of years in Ottawa; when you look at the pie chart, social service spending from that year to now, when unemployment in Toronto is virtually zero -- I assume it is zero; the Premier cancelled the job program for students, or cut it back, because he said we do not need it; you see signs all over, “Help Wanted” -- does it really makes sense, as times get really good in employment and everybody is working, or most people are working, that welfare should be going up so substantially? I do not think people understand that.

Does it make sense when the Treasurer says: “Well, we’re not the worst. Somebody has a tax somewhere in this category higher than ours. Half of them are higher in this category, sales taxes.” Which provinces are they? The Atlantic provinces? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that Ontario’s economy is similar to Nova Scotia’s or to Newfoundland’s? Is that what he is trying to sell us? Look at the western provinces. Is Ontario’s worse than their economies?

1730

During these booming times -- and nowhere has boomed more than Ontario, we all know that -- many provinces have significant budgetary surpluses to put money away for a rainy day. My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) pointed out that cumulatively, when you look at it all together, we are first, or last, however you want to look at it. We were tied, I think he said, with Newfoundland. Now we are obviously ahead of Newfoundland.

With all the infrastructure in Ontario, with all the economies of scale we should have, with all the wealth and with all the employment, the Treasurer says: “Look at Newfoundland: 20 per cent unemployment. Gee, they tax the same as we do.”

I think it is a disgrace. I think that attitude is wrong. I was intrigued this morning when I was on Metro Morning. The member for Oshawa talked about housing problems, how misdirected many of the government programs are. He was talking about speculation in the housing market and the land market. The government of Ontario sold a 40-foot lot in Malvern for $160,000. Those guys are the speculators. They are right in there. How do they expect anybody else -- ”That’s fair game. That’s what you gotta try and do.” That is the example they set.

They threw money into housing. They took a rent control program that was costing $4 million a year. The backlog was six months, or three months I think at that time. They doubled it to $6 million and the backlog went to 12 months. Then they doubled it to $24 million and the backlog went to a year and a half. They have not doubled it this time, but they are going to throw some more money at it. If they would look at the value they got for money which they have dumped in there and wasted, surely they would think throwing more money at it is not going to be beneficial.

I think I have talked at some length. I know there are others in my party and on all sides of the House who want to talk about this budget. We are very disappointed in the direction this province is going at the time of an economic boom. I remind people that it is “keep government big.” That is the way Trudeau put his lock on Ottawa for a period of time. When the economy was good, he taxed it heavily. He got locked into programs. When the economy finally went down, he had done one of two things: he had either taxed for them, or if he could not tax for them he borrowed. The interest payments in Ottawa during that period went from 10 cents to 30 cents of every dollar. That is the problem this country is in.

We see the signs of that right here in Ontario; the same type. Take a look, folks, at budgets. Go back to when he first came in and take a look at them. We see the same thing happening here. If that is Liberal policy, I think some members should rethink whether they want to be Liberals.

In view of some of the comments I have made, I would like to move an amendment, as well, to the motion.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Harris moves that the amendment to the motion be amended by striking out all the words after “That” and that the following be added:

“This House, noting that six years of sustained economic growth in the province has significantly increased government revenues and has generated substantial in-year revenue windfalls, rejects as unnecessary and unjustified the massive, inflationary and regressive tax increases proposed by the government.

“This House regrets that the government of Ontario, by increasing its personal income tax, its retail sales tax, its gasoline tax and other consumption taxes, will deprive the Ontario taxpayer of the full benefits of federal tax reform and has significantly increased the tax burden on the middle class.

“This House deplores the fact that, after a six-year period in which real economic growth in the province has averaged 5.5 per cent, the government has not been able to achieve a more substantial reduction in its budgetary deficit and continues to add to the province’s debt, two factors which will limit the ability of the province to respond to any economic downturn in a flexible and fiscally responsible manner.

“This House condemns the government for its inability to control its expenditures and particularly for its lack of action to control the costs of the province’s health care system.

“This House, noting that this government has increased expenditures by 42.8 per cent since taking office, believes that the failure of the government to effectively address the problems in housing, health care, post-secondary institutions and the education system is due to inadequate and ineffective management of its expenditures and expresses its dissatisfaction with the government’s intention of making the taxpayer pay for its own management deficiencies.”

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In the absence of the House leader, I have been asked to announce that tomorrow the first order will be second reading of Bill 115, the Toronto Economic Summit Construction Act, to be followed by a continuation of this debate.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.

26 avril 1988