role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 3, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L058 - Mon 3 Nov 1986 / Lun 3 nov 1986

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SRI LANKA CLUB

HEALTH CARE COSTS

ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE LEGISLATION

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL REVIEW

ONTARIO FINANCES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

INSURANCE RATES

LEAD LEVELS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

FLOODING

ADULT EDUCATION

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

SUNDAY RACING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

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

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER'S RESPONSE

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

Mr. Ashe: That is fast.

Mr. Brandt: That is real action.

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

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

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

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

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

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

SRI LANKA CLUB

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

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

HEALTH CARE COSTS

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

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

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

ABUSE OF THE ELDERLY

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

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

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

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE LEGISLATION

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

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

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

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

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

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

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

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

13:44

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSING HOMES

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

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

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

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

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL REVIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONTARIO FINANCES

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

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

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grossman: It is interesting to note today that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has to fess up almost exactly to the amount of understated or hidden revenue that the Progressive Conservative Party indicated he was hiding in his budget last May. At that time, we indicated that a minimum of $300 million was, shall we say, forgotten about. Today the Treasurer announces $405 million that he had forgotten about; so he has to fess up to that amount by today's date. With an election coming, it is now interesting to note that he fesses up to $400 million for six months.

Our party has been saying for some weeks now that the Treasurer, given the economic growth, is expecting $800 million; so we are right on track again. The Treasurer has a further $400 million coming in for the balance of this year.

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

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

Let us look at university funding. First, the minister obviously succeeded not in getting more money but at least in getting the Treasurer to accept the proposal put forward by both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party that the excellence fund be folded into the operating grants. However, let us fess up to it. The reality is that the total funding for universities will increase by 7.3 per cent, hardly an increase at all, compared with the 1984 increase of 6.5 per cent, for example.

With this incredible, admitted $400-million bonanza coming in, what did the Treasurer have for colleges and universities but 6.1 per cent, which is almost 1.5 per cent lower than the amount given by the previous government two years ago in a situation a lot less critical for the colleges?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, I wish to point out that both of those statements occurred at the end of a period in which the best calculation of what happened in educational finance for all sectors between the early 1970s and the early 1980s indicated that the provincial commitment to education had dropped massively and was substantially below the national average of funding in all sectors, whether one talks about elementary education, secondary education, vocational education or post-secondary higher education.

As late as 1984-85, for example, in the elementary and secondary panels, we were below the national average by about $423 per student; in the post-secondary sector, it was something in the order of $1,300 per student.

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

14:15

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

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

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

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

Our policy is well known. We have the responsibility to govern. The opposition parties may deal with the bills as they see fit. My own feeling is that by reversing the ruling of the chairman on such an obvious

section that was out of order, if there is any dislocation associated with this important legislation, the authors of it are the spokesmen for the opposition parties and not the government.

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

interpretation of procedure to thwart pay equity in the broader public sector.

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

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

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

14:20

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: New question.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

FUNDING OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Grossman: They will not even find the corner with this amount of money, let alone turn the corner. Let me remind the minister that he is talking about a total of $1.4 billion going into the system, and all his Treasurer has been able to find for him is $2 million per university to add to $1.4 billion. With respect, it is difficult to put out the proposition that $2 million per university, where it is built on $1.4 billion, allows them to get even a glimpse of the kind of future they were begging the minister to give them at that rally last week. Inflation will be 4.1 per cent next year.

He has been given 7.3 per cent, an increase of three per cent above the rate of inflation. How much does that net out to when we deduct from that the $24.8-million Board of Industrial Leadership and Development carrythrough that has been built into his budget and the $17.6 million for the current year that is the BILD carrythrough in his budget? Can he give us the net figures for transfer increases when he takes out the BILD commitments from the previous government, which he is not adding to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Does he have that exact figure?

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

Mr. Grossman: He has lumped it all in.

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

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

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

NURSING HOMES LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

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

14:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

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

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The question is in two parts, as I see it, the first dealing with the Hyde Park site. As the member would be aware, on many occasions -- both on this side of the border and on the other side of the border and in my discussions with Henry Williams, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York state -- I have indicated clearly and publicly that we in Ontario believe the site, which was a toxic waste site at Hyde Park, should indeed be excavated.

In that connection we provided funding -- I believe it was $25,000 -- to assist, along with the federal government, in providing funding to the Pollution Probe consulting firm investigation and report which, in our view, should point to the fact that the excavation of that site is a viable option.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

Mr. Harris: Share the information.

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

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

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

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

INSURANCE RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Swart: I just did.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

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

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

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

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

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

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

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

LEAD LEVELS

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

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

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

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

15:00

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

I can go on

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: New question.

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

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

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

Mr. Stevenson: No. I missed him.

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

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

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

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

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

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

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

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

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

FLOODING

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

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

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

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

15:10

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

ADULT EDUCATION

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I have indicated to the honourable member on a number of occasions, this government is very supportive of expanding the base of the opportunities in the area of adult education. We have said throughout the discussion, with respect of the bill to which he makes reference, that we wanted the separate and the public systems to expand their activities in this area. We have provided additional funding for that to take place.

Obviously, we have said in the legislation, Bill 30, with the support of the committee, that we want a policy of open access to characterize the student admissions policy of both boards. We would expect that to take place at the adult education level as well as elsewhere in the secondary panel.

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

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

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

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

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

"And

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

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

SUNDAY RACING

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

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

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

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

"And

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

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

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

I support this petition.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

Ministry administration program, $5,000,000.

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

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

Mr. Chairman: Before we start --

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House recessed at 3:21 p.m.

15:30

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or shorter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The steps we took to put an end to pocket-to-pocket bookkeeping involved a number of agencies, including the Ontario Land Corp. and the Ontario Development

Corp. as well as our public hospitals and various water treatment and control facilities. We also removed from the province's balance sheet the equity holdings of four major crown corporations, the Ontario Development Corp., the Ontario Energy Corp., the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. In the case of Suncor, the recorded investment for Suncor shares was written off and the note repaid.

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

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

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

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

15:40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We heard some announcements today about major program funding for next year. We are not into those right now, but we will undoubtedly be dissecting them in a little more detail; they are not relevant to this year's estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I would like to see some numbers. I would like to hear what the Treasurer honestly feels about the costs of government, particularly in relation to the operation of the ministers' offices, suites and huge staffs. He used to talk about the ministers' chauffeur-driven limousines. I think I can use his exact words.

I could make direct reference to this in Hansard on more than one occasion during the time he sat on this side of the House, and I look forward to that opportunity again.

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

15:50

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same thing is true for the Treasurer. It has not been customary in Ontario, at least not in the seven years I have been here, to hear Treasurers speaking a great deal about the redistributive role of the government or about its role in trying to get more equity in what we do with the income we raise. We mostly hear that the statistics of the signs of success are a seven per cent rate of unemployment and four per cent real growth, etc.

Very seldom do we look at some of the downsides of what is happening in the economy and ask why the social policy of the government is not integrated with its economic policy to address those things. It strikes me as being somewhat ironic, but then perhaps I have an overstimulated sense of irony. Who knows? I have many character traits that are specific to me, which we do not need to allude to at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of that income, the mother would have to take out amounts for her rent, her food and her clothing, as well as all the children's needs.

16 : 00

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

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

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

The Treasurer may not think that is his business. He may feel it is up to the Minister of Community and Social Services to make his pitch for some of the dollars. At a time when we are doing well, in the Treasurer's terms, and unemployment is down to a level he will brag about, when our inflation is down to levels which he is sure will be even lower next year, when he gets a windfall of $400 million, it is precisely his role at that time to say, "I want you to give me, Mr.

Minister of Community and Social Services, an indication of something I can do through the tax system, something I can do in terms of funding programs that will assist the poor." While the province is surging ahead with this new vitality he wants us to think is out there, he should ensure that at least the people at the bottom get some assistance. If he is not going to think about doing it now when we are in the green, does he expect a Treasurer to stand up when we are in the dry times to provide that type of assistance to people?

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

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

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

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

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

Why does he not make the announcement, as he could have done months ago knowing that this increase was coming through, to make sure there is that assistance to the poor in Ontario?

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

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

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

16:10

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

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

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

The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) also asked for details on reorganization in the Treasury. Treasury reorganization has not been that extensive other than that the responsibility for pensions has been largely transferred to the new Ministry of Financial Institutions. It is an adjunct to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, and the main thrust of pension development and policy now lies with that new ministry. It is still my job to inform the other treasurers with whom we meet fairly regularly about emerging pension policy.

I have not had very much to say to them recently, but perhaps some time in the near future this will be a matter for presentation of legislation in this House.

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

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

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

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

I also point out to the member and others that our tax reduction program has