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

June 8, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH PROTECTION BILL

CONSTRUCTION LIEN BILL

ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT BILL

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET PROTEST

ONTARIO HYDRO

BUDGET PROTEST

DARLINGTON GENERATING STATION

CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

IDENTITY OF ACCUSED ATTACKER

HYDRO EXPORTS

GOVERNMENT DISMISSAL OF DISABLED PERSON

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR FILM

WILD RICE HARVESTING MORATORIUM

NURSING HOME CARE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT

ASSESSMENT APPEAL PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I beg to inform the House that the clerk has received from the commissioners of estate bills their favourable report on Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive the Calabogie Asbestos Mining Co. Ltd.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH PROTECTION BILL

Hon. Mr. Grossman: After question period today, I will be introducing major legislation designed to renovate the structure of public health in this province in order to better serve Ontarians in the future.

The essence of this new legislation is the relevance of prevention as the key strategy on both medical and financial grounds. Our goal is to emphasize preventive medicine through campaigns which stress prevention through immunization, home care and other community-based programs.

Our 43 local public health units are agencies whose primary mission is the prevention of disease rather than treatment. They will be responsible for implementing a basic core of preventive health services, as outlined in the act, to their communities.

The proposed new Health Protection Act will also clarify the role of the board of health and the medical officer of health. It will update the language of the law and delete obsolete or archaic provisions.

The reason for this reform is that the legal framework for public health to this day remains the statute of 1882, which created the provincial board. Numerous amendments have been made through the years, of course, but the social environment and the scope of public health practice have changed so radically that a modern statute has become essential.

The bill will put in place a set of seven standard services in all parts of Ontario. These standards are in the following areas: community sanitation, communicable disease control, preventive dentistry, family health, home care, nutrition and public health education.

The wording of the requirement, for the boards to provide "or ensure the provision of" the designated services, is intended to encourage them to work with other local agencies in planning and delivering programs.

Program details will be spelled out in regulations and guidelines now being developed on the basis of a series of committee reports. These committees, which formulated proposals in each program area, included representatives from health disciplines employed by boards of health as well as ministry officials. In effect, then, the core proposals have largely been designed by practitioners who will be delivering the programs.

Some examples of the core programs which have been proposed are as follows:

Core services to help prevent communicable disease by strengthening the responsibility of the medical officers of health for immunization levels in the community. The health unit would have to ensure the provision of immunization services and information through regular clinics and effective links with family doctors.

Boards of health would be required to offer fluoride therapy, oral hygiene and dental education services to school children.

The family health core program will include a range of services covering the entire life cycle, from prenatal through to geriatric.

Most health units, for example, will offer childbirth education classes. This would be required of all. In addition, local boards would be responsible for evaluating the hearing and vision of every preschool child and for assessing each child's health upon school entry. Public health nurses would be responsible for identifying, assessing and monitoring high risk elderly persons in their own homes.

A growing interest in personal fitness among all age groups is prompting many people to seek information about diet and nutrition. Yet only two thirds of boards of health offer adequate nutrition programs. That would change under the core proposals.

Public health education is a further program to emphasize the preventive aspects of health. Boards of health would offer programs in the prevention and management of lifestyle diseases and serve as centres for information on home accident prevention.

As the ministry has announced previously, the core requirements will be implemented in phases. Phase one will be introduced across the province in one year. Subsequent phases can be introduced over a further period of four or five years, giving particular weighting to local priorities and timing.

This will give those health units which are below standard some time to adjust. The great majority of units receive 75 per cent of their funding from Queen's Park, totalling $79.7 million this fiscal year, more than triple the level of a decade ago.

By establishing province-wide standards, we fully recognize the creativity of local public health boards and staff who have in fact originated many of the programs which will now be extended province-wide.

Other existing programs will continue and local boards will have the option of introducing additional programs in response to local needs. The ministry's objective is simply to establish a clear minimum standard of services, services which are viewed as fundamental by public health opinion.

In short, the new Health Protection Act will create a solid legislative base for the public health system in the decades to come.

I want to pause to indicate that we have achieved this objective today because of the determination and dedication of my predecessor, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), to modernize the field of public health.

As part of the process, hundreds of briefs were submitted and thousands of interested parties co-operated with the ministry. I believe this bill is an excellent product of a thorough consultative process. None the less, it is quite possible that some people, including some regional municipal chairmen, will feel that still further input is required. I trust the members of this assembly will provide that opportunity during the committee stage of the bill.

For our part, the government will continue to listen to input through the committee stage with a view to ensuring that we complete our task with a workable state of the art piece of public health legislation.

In the end, we will have the finest public health legislation and the finest public health system on the continent.

2:10 p.m.

CONSTRUCTION LIEN BILL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing for first reading the Construction Lien Act, a bill to replace the Mechanics' Lien Act to protect the interests of those who supply services or materials to the improvement of real property.

On April 20, 1982, I tabled in this assembly the report of my advisory committee on the draft construction lien act. The bill I will introduce later today is almost identical to the committee draft legislation set out in the report.

I will therefore not take up the House's time to repeat in detail the provisions of the bill. A copy of my April 20 statement setting out the bill's major highlights will be attached to today's statement for the information of members.

This bill was developed in consultation with all segments of the construction industry. Indeed, the consultative process that preceded the introduction of the bill was the most far reaching ever conducted in connection with lien legislation.

The bill is the first total rewriting of the lien legislation in its 112-year history. It represents a concerted effort to bring the drafting of the act up to today's standards.

In reviewing suggestions for amendments to this bill, the ministry is eager to make technical revisions to improve the operation of the bill when enacted. However, substantive changes, because they may affect the delicate compromises which have made this legislation possible, will not be made without compelling reasons for doing so. Any significant change to the legislation would likely have the effect of denying the legislation the support of some interest in the industry.

This bill is not introduced as a panacea for the ills of the construction industry. However, I strongly believe that its clearer and more balanced provisions will prove helpful to all interests in the construction industry and I look forward to its enactment in the fall of 1982.

ASSESSMENT APPEALS PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, also at the appropriate time today I will be introducing the Assessment Appeals Procedure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1982.

The purpose of this bill is to overcome problems of delay that have developed in the existing assessment appeal process. Our new system will ensure that property owners who wish to exercise their full rights of appeal have a much quicker and more efficient way of making sure the assessment on which their taxes are based is fair and proper.

Under the existing Assessment Act, persons may complain to the assessment review court that they were assessed too high. An appeal lies from the decision of the assessment review court to a judge of the county or district court with a further appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

This three-level process to deal with appeals on questions of fact has resulted in significant delays. In particular, a backlog of cases has developed before county court judges.

The bill would remove county court judges from hearing assessment appeals on matters of fact. In future, appeals from the assessment review court would be taken directly to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A special division of the Ontario Municipal Board would be established to hear these appeals. In addition, appeals on matters of fact currently before county court judges that have not been set down for hearing would be transferred to the OMB.

By taking appeals directly to the OMB, the revised appeal procedure would reduce delays and expense. It would also take advantage of the OMB's existing expertise in assessment matters.

The bill does not alter the procedures under

section 50 of the Assessment Act, whereby questions of law relating to an assessment may be submitted, at any stage of the appeal process. to the county court or the Supreme Court. We have found that this procedure continues to work satisfactorily. In particular, ready access to the county court for the determination of legal issues is desirable.

As members know, my ministry is striving to make the justice system more accessible to and convenient for the public it serves. This bill I will be introducing is part of this process of law reform and administrative streamlining.

Further, my ministry and the Ministry of Revenue have already had discussions on the ways in which all property owners in Ontario can be informed of the new appeal procedures and ways in which they can exercise their rights in this regard.

Finally, the bill should be of particular interest to my friend the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). The bill is similar in many respects to the one that he introduced earlier this spring, and I would like to commend his efforts to reform the assessment appeal process. I look forward to his support as well as the support of the other members of the House in making these important amendments.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On June 9, 1977, the citizens of Ontario went to the polls and decided on their provincial members. They re-elected some and elected some new members. Of those newly elected in that year, those who in political circles are called "the class of 1977," 16 members are still in this House. They will be celebrating their fifth anniversary as members of this Legislature tomorrow.

I think it is in order to indicate that they are the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe); the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz); the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley); the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton); the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke); the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz); the member for York East (Mr. Elgie); the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp); the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy); the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey); the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan); the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope); the member for Wilson Heights (Mr.

Rotenberg); the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling); the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. W. Taylor), and that wonderful member for London North (Mr. Van Horne).

[Later]

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I was pleased to have it pointed out that about five years ago certain members of this chamber were elected. I think you would also like to know that 27 years ago tomorrow, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) were elected to this chamber. I am sure the members would like to make them feel they are still welcome here.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to correct the record. Yesterday, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), in a reply to one of my questions with regard to the "We are proud to be Canadian" coins, replied as follows:

"Mr. Speaker. I raised this question with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the evening that they were handed out" -- referring to the coins -- "which was, of course, the day before the constitutional effects took place several weeks ago. At that time, it was indicated that was the only company that within the time frame that was there could produce them in time." This meant, of course, that the coins could be produced only by the American company.

The Acting Speaker: I am questioning that this is privilege. I think there are other ways for you to raise this, so I am ruling this out of order.

Mr. Roy: Give him a chance to finish.

The Acting Speaker: I have given him a chance. I know what it is and it is not a point of personal privilege. It has been drawn to members' attention.

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I know you would be concerned about people being misinformed as a result of something that may have been said in this House on a point of privilege. Under the title, Air Ambulance Service, there is a sentence which reads, "The jet will also be available for government business as the needs arise." This was found in a pamphlet being distributed in Hamilton West. I thought that you would want to --

The Acting Speaker: I would point out to honourable members that there are other ways to raise these points. They are not points of privilege. The privileges of members of the House have not been violated.

Does the honourable member for Prescott- Russell have a different point?

Mr. Boudria: No, Mr. Speaker, it is the same point. I am merely attempting to clarify the record as to something that was said in this House.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is not being given a hearing at this point. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET PROTEST

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that an interfaith group is holding a vigil on the front lawn at Queen's Park today. They have put out a press release titled, "People Are Not Disposable." I am sure he has seen it.

In that press release they point out various facts: Ontario now ranks seventh out of nine of the provinces with respect to general welfare and family benefits payments; Ontario is the ninth lowest province in per capita spending on human services in 1980; since 1970, the adequacy of social assistance income has decreased substantially, up to 36 per cent; not a single new unit of public housing has been started in Ontario since 1975; housing generally has become increasingly less affordable for low- and moderate-income families; we are now experiencing the highest level of unemployment since the Depression; and new taxes on necessities of life levied in a recent budget burden the poor more than the rest of us.

2:20 p.m.

It goes on to say: "Social policy in our province is characterized by a callousness Ontario has not experienced in decades. We feel that the present government has betrayed the decency of the people of Ontario."

And then it has motivated people who are not generally very politically active to make this statement: "People of conscience can no longer remain silent. To do so in the face of a budget which appears to take advantage of those least able to defend themselves would be

an act of complicity."

What is the Treasurer's response to these people?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I obviously accept the sincerity of their reaction to the measures in my budget, or the policies of the government. I understand that reaction because these people are charged, as few of us are, with the responsibility of dealing with many of the people who have very real problems of all types, including income problems.

I respect their right to come here and tell us that they do not agree with this government's policy. I have to say that I depend on my colleagues in cabinet and on the other requests that come before us as a government to determine whether we are or are not being fair; and I believe in all sincerity that we are.

Mr. Peterson: I remind the minister that these are people who generally spend their time charged with keeping people's souls and who have now been motivated into political action because of the budget the Treasurer brought in.

I would suggest to him that he has made a major miscalculation, that he personally does not fully understand the impact of his regressive budget on a number of sectors across Ontario's society and that it is far harder on many people than he understands.

I would ask him, on behalf of them, on behalf of thousands of families across this province who have been hit and on behalf of everyone else to allow that budget, that Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, to come before a committee of this Legislature in order that people can make their representations to the government and so that he will fully understand what he is doing, rather than, as I suspect, operating from an uninformed point of view.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I sense that the only question in this statement was would I bring it before a committee of the House. I would only ask the Leader of the Opposition to turn to his right and ask his colleague on his right whether that follows the normal procedures of this House.

Mr. Peterson: He totally agrees with that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure he does at this point because I respect his loyalty to his leader and to his party. I simply sense that all of us have understood the ways that governments survive or fall on the budgetary policies of governments. They are well established, and I believe in the interests of uniform--

Mr. Peterson: Call an election on it, then, if you think it is so great.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Why should I call an election? I do not call elections, my Premier does.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, surely the vigil outside brings to our attention not merely the fact that governments survive or fall on a government budgetary policy, but that people in our society survive or not on a budgetary policy.

The Treasurer will remember that last week I asked him a question about benefits for people on welfare assistance, and he will recall that he said, "I have great confidence" --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Question.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr. Foulds: I am taking about as long as the Leader of the Opposition took, and I am doing so because I believe that this matter is a matter of urgent public --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am saying the same thing as you bears over --

The Acting Speaker: Proceed with your supplementary question.

Mr. Foulds: If the financial critic for the Liberal Party does not believe the poor are --

The Acting Speaker: Order. You have an opportunity for your supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer will recall that he said, "I have great confidence in my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) to make recommendations to cabinet." Will he tell us whether his colleague has made recommendations to improve the lot of 400,000 Ontario citizens, including 40,000 children in Metro Toronto who are living in poverty and whether he has endorsed this recommendation to bring their level up to the poverty line?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has had at least as many years in this Legislature as I have -- I suspect a few more. He is quite keenly aware of the cabinet system of government and the British democratic and parliamentary system. He knows very well that kind of question cannot be answered by me.

Mr. Peterson: I suspect the Treasurer, as a constituency politician representing, as he does, the people of Muskoka, would start to understand some of the effects of this budget on a variety of people. I know my constituency office is being overburdened with calls from people who are feeling the effects of this budget. Would the Treasurer not agree that he still has a lot of room to move inside this budget?

He has now backtracked on a couple of regulations. The Treasurer knows he has a lot of regulatory authority underneath that statute whereby he can tax certain meals and not others. He has already exempted Meals on Wheels. There are other things that should be exempted. For example, I would point to summer camps for underprivileged children. These children are going away this summer and will have to pay more for their meals.

There are a variety of other things. He has the capacity to use some executive discretion in drawing up those regulations to make his budget a little more fair, if possible. I would ask him again to take his budget to a committee to hear representations -- not just from us but from people across this province. In fact, his own back-benchers could make representations, because they are not very happy with what he has done. Many are saying he made a major miscalculation on this budget. He should hear them out and then use the judgement he can within that context to bring at least some degree of fairness and equity to these taxes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, was there a question at all in any point in that? What was the question?

lnterjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is the question he already asked.

Mr. Wrye: You did not answer it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suggest the purpose of a regulation is to carry out in detail the spirit and intent, either of a piece of legislation or a statement that is already covered by

an act and which requires some definition when the budget comes out. If we have shown pragmatism and understanding once, we have shown it many times, almost with every budget, as we adjust the wording in regulations to define the spirit and intent of a budgetary policy statement. We have done it before, we will do it again, and we continue to be aware of those.

As for my back-benchers rebelling, I would like to compare notes with what we hear from his.

Mr. Peterson: Let me remind the Treasurer that White backed off when he was wrong and McKeough backed off when he was wrong. Why does the Treasurer not be as big as they are?

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) -- we have a new Speaker; I notice the Deputy Speaker has taken the chair.

I am sure the Premier has been following the discussions at the Ontario Energy Board with respect to Hydro. He must be aware that Hydro is asking for a massive increase in prices over the next three years. He also will be aware of alarming things coming out about Hydro's administration with respect to projected salary increases.

Also a number of things are being hidden. We do not know the size of the Petrosar payments and what has been squandered from that point of view. I know Ontario Hydro is paying 20 to 30 per cent more for uranium than it should be because of a contract the Premier entered into. We know Hydro has been running over budget on maintenance and administration costs for the past few years. We know the nuclear plants Hydro is building have escalated dramatically in price: Darlington has gone from $4 billion to $10 billion. We know Hydro's excess oil --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think your question is a little lengthy. I would appreciate very much if you could get to the question.

Mr. Peterson: In view of this evidence and in view of the fact that Hydro is projected to have an overcapacity of some 51 per cent by 1990, is it not time that Hydro was brought under the control of this government, honouring some of the past commitments of the government to bring Hydro under control?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Energy, I will try to deal with the multiplicity of statements and, I guess, the one question; at least I guess there was a question.

I do not recall any commitments of the government. The Leader of the Opposition can correct me if I am wrong; I assume he is suggesting that Ontario Hydro be made a ministry of the government or something of that nature.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can correct the Premier at this point, because a commitment was made. As he will recall, Task Force Hydro in 1973 said there should be a formal contract setting out the rights and obligations of both the government and Hydro.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: What is this? A second supplementary?

Mr. Peterson: The government gave a commitment in 1979 that there would be a memorandum of understanding, saying that --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess we are getting into a semantic discussion as to what the Leader of the Opposition means by "control." If he is referring to a memorandum of agreement or to some delineation of responsibility or the relationship between Ontario Hydro and the government, that is one thing. I respectfully suggest that what he was really suggesting was some form of formal control. That is how I interpreted the question and, quite frankly, if he assesses how he asked it, I think that is a reasonable conclusion to come to.

I can recall discussions in this House, and I think I was involved in some of them, when the Minister of Energy made it quite clear that we did not feel it was in the interests of the consumers of this province to have Ontario Hydro as a ministry of the government, as suggested on occasion. I do not say it is a bad suggestion or a good one. I am just saying that to my knowledge there has never been any commitment that this would happen.

I must deal with what was not a question but a statement by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to some of the press reports and how he has interpreted some of the submissions before the Ontario Energy Board. I have not had an opportunity to read all the submissions. I suggest, with respect, that the Leader of the Opposition is probably referring to selected statements made before the Ontario Energy Board and perhaps has not totally relied upon the submissions from Mr. Genest, the counsel to Ontario Hydro, in reply to some of those suggestions.

I think if he traces the record accurately, and if he is as open-minded as on occasion he indicates he is, I know he will want to be fair to Ontario Hydro. It is not before the Ontario Energy Board asking for massive increases. It is before the Ontario Energy Board asking for a rate increase for one year. That is all it is asking for.

Mr. Nixon: It is projected to be 54 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, that is all it is asking for. As part of the procedures of the Ontario Energy Board, the board asked for certain projections as to what the cost factors may be over a period of time. In the Globe and Mail, Mr. Claridge took some of that assessment and built it into a figure of 54 per cent over three years. That is predicated upon one's assessment of the mathematics involved and upon certain factors that may be variable and where Hydro has to make a guesstimate. Some of the most significant factors are: What will the cost of borrowing be in 1985? What will the rate of inflation be --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I realize the question was unusually long. I think the answer has been unusually long.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of the submission to the Ontario Energy Board which reflected on salaries --

Ms. Copps: A Speaker's ruling is not debatable.

Mr. Foulds: Are you challenging the Speaker's ruling?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are you challenging the chair?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not challenging the chair at all. I am just telling you, Mr. Speaker, one cannot answer a statement that contains five or six points, if the Leader of the Opposition wants the information --

Mr. McClellan: You are just ignoring the chair.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are challenging the chair.

Ms. Copps: His ruling is not debatable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not being called to order. I would refer to --

The Deputy Speaker: I think we will go on with the supplementary question.

Mr. Foulds: He already had one.

Mr. Peterson: No, I have not. Let me remind the Premier that he does not hesitate --

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Just ask a question.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't remind anybody of anything; just ask a question.

Mr. Peterson: May I remind the Premier that he meddles in Hydro when it suits his political purposes --

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- he intervenes to equalize urban and rural Hydro rates.

The Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

Mr. Peterson: He invited Hugh Macaulay to his great Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program during the election. My question is a simple one: Why does the Premier not now honour the commitment his government made in 1979 at least to have a memorandum of understanding between his government and Hydro about what the respective responsibilities are? If the Premier is going to take the credit for the things it does, then surely he has to take some of the responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I make one or two points? I shall try again because, with respect, the Leader of the Opposition referred to five items in his first question and I have dealt with only one. With respect, I say to him that any memorandum of understanding between this government and Hydro will not impact upon the issues he raised in his initial question, those being the question of rates and the question of salaries, which Mr. Speaker did not allow me to answer.

If the Leader of the Opposition reads the submission carefully, he will understand that the submission was made in December and that Mr. Genest made it quite clear at the Ontario Energy Board hearing that the question of salaries was under review by Ontario Hydro. The Leader of the Opposition did not say that to the public, of course, even though I think it is there in documentation, which would have been a very fair way to explain it.

I only say to the member that in spite of his questions, in spite of the critical comments he has made about Ontario Hydro, in spite of everything he has contributed to this important area of public discussion, there is one reality he cannot escape. That reality is that Ontario Hydro is still producing more efficiently, at lower rates to the consumer, than is any other comparable public or private utility in North America. He cannot escape from that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier is probably not aware that in the state of Massachusetts electric power is more expensive than in Ontario; in the state of Rhode Island it is more expensive than in Ontario --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I have a supplementary.

Interjection.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think I have a supplementary.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for Port Arthur. I say to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) that I find it very difficult to accept his request for a point of privilege on that point.

Mr. Foulds: Can I ask the Premier why his majority government killed the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs when it was about to examine the relationship between government and Hydro and the question of making Hydro responsible to government'?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government killed the select committee.

Mr. MacDonald: It certainly did.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That select committee killed itself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the select committee was terminated by the course of events.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Terminated by an election, by a majority government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a very distinct difference. I would never terminate the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Mr. Foulds: You couldn't. You wouldn't know how.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Events will terminate him. I am referring to his political career and nothing else.

Mr. MacDonald: You have been saying that for 25 years.

An hon. member: Events being Bob Rae.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The events being Bob Rae perhaps. Is he on the short end or the top end of the lottery?

Mr. Foulds: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I point out to the member for Port Arthur, and I am sure the Minister of Energy will be delighted to discuss this, that the issue really is not a memorandum of understanding delineating areas of responsibility. The issue that gave rise to the stories in one of the newspapers and the discussions yesterday was the report in the Globe and Mail with respect to the possible increases, which are not being sought by Ontario Hydro at this moment. The member can check with his colleague the member for York South; he understands the procedures of the Ontario Energy Board. In fact, they are not requesting that sort of rate increase.

No matter what memorandum of understanding there may be as between the government and Ontario Hydro, there will still be the process of Ontario Hydro appearing before the Ontario Energy Board. That is not going to disappear. His party would be the last one to want it to disappear, I would hope. Certainly we will never initiate that disappearance, because it is an opportunity for others to become involved in that process.

I say to the member to ask his colleague the member for York South. He has some understanding of these issues as to what would be contained in an agreement, and it does not refer to Ontario Hydro not going before the Ontario Energy Board.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, did the Premier indicate that Ontario has the cheapest electric power rates of any utility in North America? Is the Premier suggesting that our rates are lower than Quebec hydro rates, or those of Manitoba or Saskatchewan for that matter?

In an answer to my leader, the Premier suggested the proposed memorandum of understanding would not address the issues my leader raised. The Premier should know that we do not even know any terms of reference of any memorandum of understanding. The memorandum was promised in 1979, and it was promised in lieu of a private member's bill submitted to this Legislature by myself and entitled

An Act respecting the Public Accountability of Ontario Hydro. That bill would have followed we 1973 recommendations of Task Force Hydro, but it was turned down by the government. Instead, a memorandum of understanding was promised. Where is that memorandum of understanding?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to answer what in fact were three questions. Did I say that Ontario Hydro rates were lower than hydro rates in Quebec or Manitoba? The answer to that is no, I did not say that.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes, you did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I said was very simple, and I said it in a way that I hoped the member for Halton-Burlington would understand. I said that Ontario Hydro is more efficient and has cheaper rates than any comparable utility in North America. I ask the honourable member to show me a utility that is roughly one third nuclear, one third water and one third oil in energy that has a cost as low as Ontario Hydro's. That is how one has to make one's comparisons.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You are wrong.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One Premier -- 100 per cent baloney.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, one cannot compare Hydro-Québec with Ontario Hydro when Hydro-Québec is sitting with a contract with Churchill Falls for, I believe, three-mill power. That is not a valid comparison.

I point out to the member, who used to know a little bit about this, that Ontario Hydro is regarded as the most efficient utility, based on comparisons with any comparable utility in North America. He can compare it with utilities in Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, California or Florida, with the Tennessee Valley Authority, or with any one he cares to name; Ontario Hydro is light-years ahead of them, "light-years" being a good phrase.

With great respect to the member, in terms of the memorandum of agreement, as I said to his leader, any memorandum of agreement will not alter the kind of discussion that is going on at the Ontario Energy Board. It will not alter the procedures. It does not change the nature of the question or the answers.

The Deputy Speaker: New question; the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Speaker. I have a new question; I am entitled to two.

The Deputy Speaker: Sorry; you are right. New question; the member for Port Arthur.

BUDGET PROTEST

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Premier a very simple, direct question with regard to the vigil outside. The people participating in the vigil say in their statement, in effect, that the government is creating a class of disposable people who have no political voice and who are regarded as too few in numbers to warrant much public concern. As Premier of this province, does he feel that he has betrayed the decency of the people of Ontario? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a silly-phrased question. The answer, very simply, is no.

Mr. Foulds: Will the Premier then prove his answer by responding to the requests and demands of the people holding the vigil? Will the Premier order his cabinet colleagues to bring into this House within one week an immediate 25 per cent increase in social assistance payments to recover the 1975 rates? Will he make a commitment to raise social assistance levels over the next five years at least to the poverty line? Will he increase the number of socially assisted housing units in Toronto by at least 5,000 in the next 12 months?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member cannot be very serious. I do not order ministers to do things. Second, any changes or increases in benefits are matters that are dealt with by cabinet as a cabinet. As the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said earlier, it is not something I would disclose to the House in any event.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the discontent of these people at the moment is focusing on the budget brought in by the Treasurer and because they say, I want to remind the Premier, "In the face of a budget which appears to take advantage of those least able to defend themselves, it would be

an act of complicity to do nothing," will the Premier at least allow these people to make representations on the full effect of the budget on low-income families across the province?

Does the Premier not feel it is fair to provide that forum at least so that they would have a full hearing of their concerns with respect to the budget?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the Leader of the Opposition operates. If he is looking for a forum, if he is looking for opportunities for a hearing, I have never been reluctant, on behalf of this government, to meet with groups or individuals. I spend most of my life doing that, as do other ministers of the crown.

If this particular group wishes to give some statistical information to the Treasurer, to the minister or to me, to make their representations to the government, of course we will receive them.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, during the last number of weeks since the budget, my colleagues and I have raised issues with respect to poverty a number of times in the House. It is an old rule that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We have not been getting much response.

Now that there is a silent circle of concerned religious leaders out on the lawn, will the Premier please respond to them and indicate that he will address this problem of poverty in the province at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have never intentionally led astray any person or any group of people. I am not going to be in a position to say to these people that we can accommodate all of the requests they have publicly stated.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, if they wish to make representations to the minister involved or to the Treasurer, we will be delighted to receive them.

DARLINGTON GENERATING STATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us whether he and his government still believe that the Darlington nuclear power station is an economically feasible proposition?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued. I can only assume that the acting leader of the New Democratic Party is once again putting his party on the record as being in opposition to the construction of Darlington.

Mr. Foulds: I just asked if the Premier thought it was economically feasible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let us not play any games. Let us not be cute. I am intrigued, and I just want the honourable member to go to Cambridge, to Peterborough, to several other communities where the industrial strength of this province is involved in the creation of Darlington and say that to the workers in those communities.

Instead of going to some of the places the member finds easy, he should go somewhere and challenge them by saying, "You are going to be out of a job because we do not believe in building Darlington."

Yes, I believe Darlington should proceed.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Premier aware that if we were to take the amount of money being projected for Darlington and invest it in the manufacturing sector and in the auto industry, we would be exporting autos to Japan instead of the other way around?

Is the Premier aware that when Darlington was approved by the board of Ontario Hydro, its estimated cost was $4 billion; that in the spring of 1981 it was $5.4 billion; that in December 1981 it was $6.25 billion; that in February 1982 it was projected at $8.2 billion; and that just the other day, in Hydro's annual report, Hydro said it would be $9.1 billion? That is half the budget of the province.

In terms of that amount of escalation, I repeat the question asked by Mr. Rogers of the Ontario Energy Board before the hearing: "At some point the shockingly increased forecasts of costs must render these plants uneconomic. Where is that point?" That is the question I want to ask the Premier: At what point do those plants and that cost become uneconomical?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad the member is asking me and still looking at the gallery at the same time.

I will reply to the member in somewhat more positive terms. Mr. Rogers is there to do a job. The select committee, I think, had some understanding. There is no question that there has been an inflation in cost. If one takes the figure of, say, $7 billion and calculates inflation at an annual rate of around 11 or 12 per cent, there is a $700-million to $800-million bill just in the rate of inflation in one current year.

If one translates the final cost over a six- or seven-year program -- which is what we are talking about; we are not talking about that kind of investment in a single year -- into the number of construction jobs that will be available and are available at Darlington, and if one calculates it in terms of employment in the manufacturing sector, I think one will find that there is a very legitimate return to the economy of this province.

If the member is saying to me, at the same time as his party is so critical of other environmental concerns in relation to Ontario Hydro, that Ontario Hydro should not be making the move to utilize nuclear power to a greater extent, then he should stand up and say so. But in the same breath he should not complain about acid rain. He cannot have it both ways.

The costs of Ontario Hydro for their nuclear program are, once again, superior to anything in North America. Mr. Rogers is a great, eminent counsel, doing a job; but look at Mr. Genest's reply. The member might at least have the fairness to put that on the table as well.

Mr. Foulds: You put it on the table.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure. Here, I will let the member read it. He always listens to one side when it is convenient to him.

When one traces the increase in the cost of coal over the past decade and calculates the increased cost of oil and natural gas over the past decade, and if one projects these into the next decade, even though capital costs and the costs of personnel are higher, the fuel cost, which is the essential and basic cost, is still projected to be substantially lower than that of the other forms of fuel; so one will find that it continues to be economically viable. I hope that completes the member's education.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear to the Premier that we are in favour of the nuclear option. The question is, in this particular plant, where the overrun has been in the neighbourhood of $6 billion, how does the Premier react to the comment that was made by the Oshawa public utilities commissioner, who was angry about the cost overruns at the Darlington nuclear generating plant?

"Gordon Burnett says Ontario Hydro is awarding contracts for the project near Bowmanville on a cost plus commission basis instead of going to the marketplace for the lowest bidder. As a result, he said, the current estimate on the project is going to rise unconscionably."

Imagine what a $4.2-billion cost overrun would do to the economy if it were put in the housing field.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: The Premier has not mentioned the fact that we do not know what it is going to cost to decommission plants or to dispose of nuclear waste, and he is telling us how great the nuclear option is when he does not know himself. Will he admit that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to state that no society has totally solved the problem of disposing of nuclear waste. The honourable member will recall, however, with respect to the Hydro generation facilities, that if one were to calculate the cost at the Pickering generating unit in relation to the number of megawatts produced at that plant and in consideration of the fact that they can dispose of the waste that is used by Ontario Hydro within that plant by means of a facility that is already part of the capital plant itself, I think one would find that that cost can be calculated and that it is already in the cost of generation at the nuclear plant in Pickering.

I am delighted to hear that the member's party at long last is in favour of nuclear power.

Mr. Kerrio: We always have been.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, they have been ambivalent; let us be frank about it. It all depends whose riding he is in on what given day, but I am delighted to hear his support of it.

I will just reiterate to the member for Niagara Falls that I appreciate that support, because we both know this is the best option for Ontario Hydro to pursue. They are doing it effectively and efficiently; once again, in terms of other comparable facilities they are the most efficient in North America.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier not have the slight feeling that he is being trampled by two white elephants, Suncor and Darlington?

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Premier respond to the following specific comment of Mr. Rogers with regard to the escalation in cost of the nuclear plant? "There does not appear to be any mechanism which would trigger a re-evaluation of the need for a capital expenditure when a change in escalation factors causes the forecast to rise" Does the Premier not think it would be a good idea to re-establish that examination mechanism? Will he not re-establish the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs or some mechanism to review these matters?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that Mr. Rogers is getting so much attention. He is a very able lawyer; I do not quarrel with that at all. But he represents a single point of view as expressed by himself, doing the job before the Ontario Energy Board for which he has been retained and paid. I would only suggest to the honourable member that he read everything presented to the OEB, including the arguments of Mr. Genest. I think the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) would say Mr. Genest is every bit as able as Mr. Rogers and, in terms of knowledge about Ontario Hydro, perhaps has some greater insights than others.

If the member is suggesting he is opposed to Darlington once again, I want it on the record. I am pleased to hear it, but I challenge him to go into those communities whose economic vitality depends on the courageous decision of Ontario Hydro to move ahead with Darlington and tell the people so. He should go into those communities and tell workers they are redundant and do not need their jobs. He should have the nerve to do that.

I am always intrigued by the member's observations about Suncor. While he likes to have it both ways on so many issues, he cannot escape the stated philosophical objective of his party, the statements made by his national leader, and the fact that on the day Suncor was announced, his only criticism was that we did not acquire 51 per cent.

CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUMS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I wonder whether he is aware of a potentially disastrous situation facing more than 500 families and senior citizens who are tenants of Robinson Towers Ltd. in Hamilton.

Last December, Robinson Towers Ltd. levied an illegal rent increase, which was rolled back. Subsequently, it applied to the Residential Tenancy Commission for a 33 per cent increase, which was refused. Now the company has decided it will convert the units to condominiums and it is asking the tenants, predominantly senior citizens, for a $10,000 down payment to buy into its condominium conversion.

Why does the minister not bring in some province-wide legislation to assist local municipalities in stopping this callous practice, which is cruelly indifferent to the lives of many of those people in Hamilton and Stoney Creek, unfortunately not an area represented by this party? Why does the minister not step in and stop this situation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I trust the honourable member has availed herself of the information that relates to the conversion program in this province regarding rental to condominium. The right to convert that unit rests with the municipality. The municipality makes the decision whether the unit will be converted from rental to condominium. Then it generally flows to the minister for concurrence. But the principal decision rests right where it should, at the municipal level.

Ms. Copps: The minister knows full well that a member of his own party has introduced private member's legislation to get the province to take this bull by the horns and deal with what is becoming a rapidly growing problem across Ontario, including areas like Hamilton.

The current apartment vacancy rate in Hamilton is 0.6 per cent, which is below the provincial average of 0.8 per cent and well below the documented industry-wide standard of 1.5 to two per cent. This potential conversion could create further pressure on tenants in the Hamilton area. What is the minister going to do to alleviate this conversion, which potentially will hurt senior citizens and families in the Hamilton area?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is obvious the member is confused. She does not recognize what the member presented to this House as private legislation. It is not to deal with the field of --

Ms. Copps: It would encourage demolition --

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just one moment. The member had her turn. She should just listen for a moment and find out how the situation pertains in Ontario.

We are a government that has great respect for the right of municipalities to govern in their jurisdictions. Indeed the legislation very clearly gives to the city of Hamilton or Stoney Creek or any of the others the right to concur or otherwise with an application to convert a rental unit to condominium. I have said that three times this afternoon. I trust the member now understands what I have said.

I am aware of the rental problems in most of the major communities of this province. Through the amount of money it has made available to the development industry under its Canadian rental supply program, the federal government hopes to get a number of units started in Ontario and in the rest of Canada to try to bring the rental supply more into line with the needs of the day.

The member will recall that on the night of the budget this government brought in the renter-buy program because we were asked by the federal government not to participate in any way, in the current year, in trying to stimulate rental construction.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Would the member listen just for a moment?

The federal government wanted to do the rental program on its own so we stepped aside and said: "Fine. If you think you can produce the number of rental units we need in Ontario, be our guest." Therefore we brought in the renter-buy program, which has been very successful.

Ms. Copps: You don't even believe that yourself.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was an attempt to try to find a way to move people out of rental accommodations into ownership.

The Deputy Speaker should not give me the finger to wind up. I have had the same kind of remarks from the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps).

Ms. Copps: Some people can't afford to buy. That's the problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not say a thing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Minister; in conclusion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Who runs this House, Claude?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that we are not dealing with the question of demolition; we are dealing with the rights of conversion. I think what this government is doing through the Challenge 2000 program in trying to free up some of the rental units in this province, along with the federal government, will produce --

Ms. Copps: What about senior citizens?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me just make a statement this afternoon:

It will produce a higher vacancy rate in this province than will be acceptable by the economics of the day -- watch and see -- in the next 12 to 18 months.

Mr. Philip: The minister will realize that at least one municipality, namely the city of Toronto, has recognized that it does not have sufficient power to deal with the worst kind of conversion, namely conversion by demolition, and now has a private bill, Pr13, before a committee of this Legislature. He will also realize that if this bill does not get through this House by the summer there will be a run of demolitions in the city.

Would the minister give assurance to the House that if the hearings on Bill Pr13 are not concluded and it appears this House cannot deal with the bill before the House recesses, he will introduce in this House an emergency bill that will at least put a temporary freeze on demolitions in the city of Toronto until such time as this Legislature may deal with Bill Pr13?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce such a bill into this House. I trust that Bill Pr13 will be discussed and reviewed by the committee with the aim of reporting back to the House. I have said very clearly that I will not introduce legislation.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

Section 14 of the Mental Health Act defines an involuntary patient as a person who "is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in (1) serious bodily harm to the person; (2) serious bodily harm to another person; or (3) imminent and serious physical impairment of the person, unless the person remains in the custody of a psychiatric facility ... "?

If the minister is aware of that definition of an involuntary patient, can he explain to us how it is -- according to information he tabled yesterday -- that in January, 1982, 16 involuntary psychiatric patients were absent without leave from Queen Street? In February, 1982, 18 involuntary patients were absent; in March, 1982, 27 involuntary patients were absent; and in April, 1982, there were 28 involuntary patients, by definition dangerous either to themselves or other people, who had wandered out of Queen Street into the surrounding community. How on earth can this continue to happen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the Queen Street Mental Health Centre has recently taken steps to ensure that will not continue to happen. In fact those numbers of incidents are the product of a certain method of treatment and a certain philosophy that has been in place at Queen Street for several years. That resulted in the Peat Marwick study and other initiatives with regard to solving that and other problems.

The member has, over time, objected to some of the steps that have been taken. A couple of weeks ago, I guess it was, there was a demonstration on the grounds of Queen Street Mental Health Centre objecting to the erection of some security facilities that would help solve this problem.

It is an example of the problems and conflicts one faces there in trying to put in some medium security facilities. Some people are objecting. I happen to think that if we are going to reduce those numbers the kinds of steps that are being implemented by Dr. Malcolmson, the new chief of staff at Queen Street, are the right ones. I think they will reduce those numbers.

Mr. McClellan: I continue to find the minister's response incomprehensible. How on earth has the open door policy ever had anything to do with involuntary patients? I am talking about involuntary patients, not informal patients. He should not try to confuse it.

The answer tabled yesterday states at the bottom that the number of patients absent without leave increases during warmer months. As far as the minister is concerned, is that an indication we can look forward over the spring and summer to additional involuntary patients wandering out of Queen Street Mental Health Centre into the surrounding community, by definition putting themselves and other people into danger? Is that the position the minister is taking -- the position he seems to be stating again this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I must repeat my earlier remark with the concurrence of the Speaker. The member knows very well all that is a function of the theory of psychiatry that has been practised over the last few years and has not yet been changed dramatically at Queen Street Mental Health Centre. An attitude, a philosophy and a method of treatment based upon the geographical allocation and certain other things occurring in that building have caused those things to happen.

After all, the bricks and mortar reconstruction of that centre was based upon a certain philosophy of treatment. That philosophy of treatment is one which caused a certain construction pattern to be followed. That construction pattern and the treatment pattern happen to have that kind of situation as a consequence.

I do not find that situation tolerable. My predecessor did not and the ministry does not. Consequently, there have been dramatic changes put in place, many of which the member objected to. It reminds me of the question the Leader of the Opposition asked a moment ago about Darlington. As a result of these changes, those figures will be reduced, if not eliminated. When we changed the procedures to try to stop this, the member was among those most vocal in objecting to those procedures.

Mr. McClellan: That is not true and the minister knows it is not true.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is true.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister when he will institute certain steps that will provide for greater community participation in and community control over the hospital. I am fairly certain that if greater input was provided that kind of situation would not occur to the extent it does. When will the minister provide a greater sense of community input at the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I know the member has noted the recent initiatives of the ministry in appointing patients' advocates for each of the 10 psychiatric institutions. Queen Street will be one of them and that will go some way towards addressing his concerns. We also have indicated we will be appointing community advisory boards for our institutions.

The community advisory board will come into play later on in the process in the case of Queen Street, because we desire to finish the implementation of the change of philosophy and the implementation of the Peat Marwick report before we move to the community advisory board process in that case. We will monitor the progress over the next year or so and make some decisions based upon the progress they are making.

However, I think the member will agree we are taking steps to get the community far more involved in what is happening at Queen Street and in the surrounding neighbourhood.

3:10 p.m.

IDENTITY OF ACCUSED ATTACKER

Mr. Shymko: I would like to address my question to the Attorney General. According to a press

article dated Monday, June 7, in the Toronto Sun, one Gordon Henry Taylor was arrested over the weekend and charged with forcible confinement and assault on a six-year-old boy. Apparently he was forced from a parkette on Close Avenue and assaulted. I would like to ask the Attorney General whether that "Gordon Henry Taylor" is the same "Gordon Taylor" who, on March 5, 1979, was convicted of an indecent assault on a four-year-old girl? He apparently was given a suspended sentence and a three-year probation by a court decision in that same year.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will attempt to obtain that information for the honourable member.

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Elston: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I know he will be aware that Ontario Hydro, in its 1983 rate application before the Ontario Energy Board, has applied for an expenditure next year of $67 million on the General Public Utilities Lake Erie cable project.

I do not think the minister can justify such a demand by Ontario Hydro, which would increase electricity rates next year, if it has not already received the official approval of the government. Is Ontario Hydro's confidence a result of the fact it has received blanket approval from the government for its plan, regardless of any environmental considerations? Or is it yet another example of Ontario Hydro's independence from the government which allows it to do whatever it wishes without any worry of government interference?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think a simple answer to that would be that it is neither of the two alternatives the honourable member put forward.

Mr. Elston: Would the minister not agree that Ontario Hydro's confidence in the fact that this project will proceed is further evidence of the lack of any control by this minister over Ontario Hydro on environmental issues?

Hydro has managed to obtain blanket exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act for almost every major project -- a total of 57 specific projects or an average of about one specific project per month -- since the legislation came into existence. Even letters to the Premier concerning acid rain from Ontario Hydro's proposed sale to GPU are answered with a form letter. It includes an Ontario Hydro fact sheet and explains that the Premier's position coincides with that of Ontario Hydro. Is the minister unable to take a position which is independent of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I most certainly can, do, have done, and will continue to do when it is appropriate.

GOVERNMENT DISMISSAL OF DISABLED PERSON

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Revenue and it concerns his department's commitment to disabled people.

I am not sure if he is aware of a headline in Topical of January 1982 which said, "The theme of the International Year of Disabled Persons will not fade away." I wonder if the minister is aware of how it is fading away for one Mr. David Dunlop of Toronto, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and who was featured in the much-acclaimed advertisement "Label us able"? He was hired as a temporary employee by the ministry a year ago January. Because of his work between that period and June of last year, he was hired as a full-time clerk at the clerk 3 level last July 31.

On June 4, last Friday, he received two weeks' pay in lieu of notice because the minister's people did not think he was capable of doing the job.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that situation within the Ministry of Revenue. There is no doubt the end result is unfortunate. The issue, as I understand it, is in the third stage of the grievance procedure and will be going forward accordingly.

I can assure all of the honourable members the unfortunate discharge of the person referred to obviously had nothing to do with his physical difficulties at all. To the contrary, there were medical examinations by the government and outside to make sure it was not anything to do with his physical disability that may have caused the problems that did not allow him to do his job in the way we felt it had to be done to retain the position. We bent over backwards to ascertain that.

I am very convinced, after being made aware of the issue, that is not the case. It is unfortunate that the job demands could not be met but it had nothing to do with the state of his health -- either mentally or physically.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wonder if the minister would tell us if it had anything to do with the fact that he did not receive proper training? Is he aware that he did not receive an evaluation report until March 4 of this year? Is that the kind of support the minister feels he should be giving to disabled people who are trying to make a go of it in his ministry?

Is the minister aware of this other

article in Topical published last November with a headline which features David Dunlop and his work in that ministry which says: "Disorders Won't Stop These Men." Would he like to add to that, "But the Minister of Revenue will"?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that some of the members opposite try to take advantage of a very unfortunate incident and unfortunate situation vis-à-vis a person. Again, I have to stress I am fully aware of the situation. I support the actions that unfortunately we had to take vis-à-vis that person. I think it is fine to shout discrimination, if one will, but the facts will prove that is not the case. The gentleman was on probation; he was unable to carry on the functions of his job and he was dismissed accordingly, with termination pay as of last Friday.

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer dealing with his budget. The Treasurer will no doubt be aware that all sorts of charitable institutions such as Boys and Girls Clubs, the Young Men's Christian Association, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides and all, have been preparing or have budgeted for summer camps for children, a large percentage of whom are from needy families.

Knowing this, does the Treasurer really intend to proceed with his budget and tax the meals these children will be enjoying at summer camp? Does he really intend to tax the accommodation of these children at summer camp?

Hon. Mr. Pope: It must be Tuesday, Albert is here.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That was asked one day when you were not here.

Mr. Elston: You weren't here either.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: But I know the questions that were asked.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not have a chance to answer that question last week, but I assume the Minister of Revenue answered that last week, did he not? I think the member should refer to him.

Mr. Roy: Will the Minister of Revenue tell us?

The Deputy Speaker: Let's tidy this up.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Read it in Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The member is of the legal profession and I hope he can read. I think he can refer to Hansard of last week.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for question period has expired.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary --

The Deputy Speaker: I think I indicated you would only have the opportunity for one quick, final question. Question period has expired.

Mr. Roy: I think you will agree that --

The Deputy Speaker: A point of order?

Mr. Roy: -- it is cavalier on the part of both of these ministers to take the attitude that we have to read it in Hansard. What are they afraid of?

NUCLEAR WAR FILM

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to bring to the members' attention that the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has asked the permission of the chair for distribution of a notice to all members of a film being shown on Thursday. The chair has authorized that distribution.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the notice that was to be distributed to members opposite is not here, I will tell them it is an invitation from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and myself to see a film on nuclear war. It will be shown at 1 o'clock in committee room 2 on Thursday and I would hope all members would be capable of attending.

WILD RICE HARVESTING MORATORIUM

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Last Friday, when I was sitting in a committee outside the House, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), in the House, when replying to my urging that the government extend the moratorium on granting wild rice licences to non-natives, asserted that I was ill-informed and I did not even know how to cook wild rice. I would like to correct the record and tell him I do indeed know how to cook wild rice -- and I hope he does too in this nonsexist society.

3:20 p.m.

On a more serious note, I do not consider his personal attack to be a valid answer to why he is refusing to extend the moratorium for another five years. I request that you ask him to substantiate his allegations as to my lack of knowledge on the subject.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it is a point of order, a point of privilege or what it is a point of, but I am sure you can give me direction. Last week I asked a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) about a nursing home in St. Thomas. The minister took note of the question and reported back to the Legislature with information that was out of date. He said an inspection was to occur last Friday, and that took place. We were given the impression he would report back to the Legislature. As I understand it, all my concerns have been proven valid and the minister is obviously afraid to report to the Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: I am having difficulty slotting that either as a point of privilege or a point of order. Furthermore, I do not think the Minister of Health would be particularly afraid to answer your question during question period.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think, as I stated before, it is somewhat cavalier on the part of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) to treat charitable institutions in the fashion they did. Therefore, under standing order 28(b), I would like either one of these bandits to reattend the House at 10:30 p.m. and give the charitable institutions of Ontario a proper explanation of why the meals and accommodation of needy children in Ontario are going to be taxed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what time the honourable member's plane leaves and whether he is taking a later one?

Mr. Roy: Don't worry. I will be here, Mr. Speaker. Bring the explanation.

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) used what I consider to be unparliamentary language. I think it is unparliamentary to refer to another member of this Legislature as a bandit and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to hear the member for Ottawa East on this.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, until I get a proper explanation from these ministers, I will call them nothing else but bandits or Robin Hoods in reverse.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Wilson Heights want an immediate response to his inquiry?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unparliamentary language, and I would like you to rule on the word "bandit." I do not think it should be used in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I will rule that, in my judicial opinion -- I would like the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to take note of that -- we will accept it as appropriate.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as Treasurer of this province, I am not a bandit and the next time I visit your riding I must recall that.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am in your riding more often than he is. I double it.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, just before the orders of the day: I do not want to prolong the discussion but I wonder if you would like to reconsider your ruling in regard to a statement by the member for Ottawa Centre. I really think it --

Mr. Ruston: Ottawa Centre is down there.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Ottawa East; sorry.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The point I am making is that I really think it was inappropriate for you to say the statement by this member -- that the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue are bandits -- was appropriate. I wonder if the honourable member would care to enlarge on that, or perhaps he might consider withdrawing it.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have been watching all afternoon the various rulings you have made affecting the Premier (Mr. Davis) and a variety of ministers on that side, and I want to compliment you on not being intimidated.

I think the basis of your ruling is that part of my statement was made in jest when I used the word "bandit." I only referred to one minister as that; the other one is actually a sidekick. I just refer to the Treasury as that.

In no way do I subscribe to the theory that one can call a minister a bandit in the true sense. If it offends the acting government House leader, I can replace that word "bandit" and use the expression "Robin Hood in reverse."

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that his remarks are not what offended me because I can take them where they came from. What offended me, Mr. Speaker, was your statement that you found the term "bandit" appropriate. I just wonder if you might like to reconsider that.

The Deputy Speaker: This can become a great debate but I think it is only fair to recognize the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I hate to see the grim looks across there because we have had very good service from the Speaker who is in the chair today. We are not passing judgement on him. He has served both sides very well, there is no doubt about that. I do not want to incur any animosity; I would simply say to the acting government House leader that, if he does not like the ruling of the Speaker, there is a well-known procedure which he either uses or does not use.

Everybody has his moments when he is better than at other times, but this man has served the House very well and I sincerely hope nobody is putting anybody on a spot. If the member thinks it is that important, there is a procedure that is clearly understood for him to use.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised because the Speaker has attempted on several occasions today to give some balance. He has been challenged about three different times today. He was challenged by the Premier. It was all right. I did not hear the Tories whimper when he called on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) to place his question. There was not a word except when the objection came.

Probably the member who violates the rules more in this House with respect to question period is the Premier who was called to order by the Speaker. That has been a long time in coming. I am glad someone has done it. I now find the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) challenging. I find the acting House leader doing it.

If anyone had listened to my friend from Ottawa East they would realize he said what he said in jest. There was no anger. The tone was in good humour and this place can use a little levity once in a while. For the government to challenge the Speaker in the way it has done today is simply unacceptable. If it wants to challenge his ruling, then I suggest it challenge without chastising. It has the option. It can challenge him but I do not think it has the right to chastise him.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have just made my feelings known. I have no further comments.

The Deputy Speaker: The acting House leader has indicated a request of me. The member for Ottawa East has also. I would like to say I took the whole discussion in a jesting manner. The member for Ottawa East has withdrawn his remark. On re-examining the situation, I would have ruled differently.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr 14,

An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I hope your furniture is in your office when you get back there later today.

HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Mr. Timbrell, first reading of Bill 138,

An Act respecting the Protection of the Health of the Public.

Motion agreed to.

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 139,

An Act to revise the Mechanics' Lien Act.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT APPEAL PROCEDURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 140,

An Act to amend certain acts in respect of Assessment Appeal Procedures.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Assistant Clerk: The 30th order, second reading of Bill 111,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund; Mr. Miller, Muskoka.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, you will note there is no one on the government side who has the authority, presumably, to move second reading of this bill. I presume the members have no interest in carrying on the government program.

Hon. F. S. Miller moved second reading of Bill 111,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional bill of the House. Its purpose is to provide authority for borrowing moneys for the consolidated revenue fund. The amount of $2.25 billion is authorized by this bill to cover the estimated borrowing requirements of the province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak on Bill 111 and to indicate to the Treasurer and to the House that we will oppose this bill.

As the Treasurer has indicated, this is a traditional bill which would give the province the authority to raise money for the expenditures of the province before some of them have been dealt with in the various estimates.

It is also traditional in that it gives the opposition an opportunity to lay before the Legislature our concerns in regard to the operations of the government and the executive council. We have always enjoyed -- if that is the proper word -- a rather wideranging debate, and I presume that will happen here today.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think that point needs clarification before the debate goes too far. It was my understanding in the past that, through enlargement of the

interpretation, interim supply enjoyed that far-ranging debate but not the loan act. I suggest the loan act is very specific in its requests.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I suppose we will debate that particular

interpretation later on in the day.

Earlier, there was a class sitting in the gallery behind me which was from the school I attended as a young lad in Atikokan, which is in my riding. Their visit brings to my mind the fact that the money to be raised by way of loans under Bill 111 will be repaid, no doubt, by those schoolchildren in the years to come, because of the mismanagement of this government.

This bill gives the Treasurer and the government the authority to borrow from the Canada pension plan, the Ontario Treasury bill program. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. waste control loans and the federal-provincial-municipal loan programs among others.

I want to make it very clear at the outset that we have a great deal to say concerning these matters, and it may take us a while to say it. Our concern is based on the fact that we are dealing with a bill that arises from the budgetary actions

of the Treasurer and his requirements for funds flowing from the budget and its documents.

We on this side, certainly we in the Liberal Party, have been upset because we see the accountability to this Legislature and to the people of the province being steadily eroded by those opposite, particularly by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer. We have attempted, on occasion, since "the realities," as the Premier likes to say, of March 19, 1981, to hold this government accountable for the mistakes it has made in the past, to pay for which it has now to borrow the money from the six sources listed in the bill.

For instance, we have been concerned that it has been almost impossible to get behind both the process and the actual details of the whole Suncor proposition. We have yet to be able to hold the government, the Premier and the Treasurer responsible and accountable before this Legislature for the events that led up to that purchase, for the $64 million we are paying out in principal and interest every year, for the $325 million that has already flowed south to Radnor, Pennsylvania, as the downpayment on Suncor. That is only one of our concerns.

3:40 p.m.

As well, we have a concern about the whole budgetary process and the way the budget was transacted; the fact that there may well have been budget leaks and that some people may have been able to take advantage of inside knowledge as to what was in the budget.

I have raised these matters on occasion with the Treasurer. I have been concerned that the renter-buy program particularly was changed from the original guidelines the Treasurer was going to announce in his budget because of the statements and stories in the press as to what would be available, if and when --

Hon. F. S. Miller: That's sheer speculation.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It may well be sheer speculation, but I say there is a process for the setting up. the printing and the reading of the budget in this chamber and in other democratic institutions.

One of those traditional aspects of any budget-making is the confidentiality and the secrecy of the budget document. There are a number of reasons for that. Obviously, one of the primary reasons is so that nobody with knowledge of what is in the budget will be able to use that information to aggrandize themselves, to make money out of it or to know what is coming so they can make moves either on the stock market or otherwise. That is at the heart of the major reasons for budget secrecy.

We, on this side -- myself in particular -- have tried to find out whether there was a budget leak. I raised the matter with the Premier and he, in his own inimitable style with the arrogance that has come to suit him extremely well since March 19, 1981, raised his hand grandly and said, "That is just silly." That may be the Premier's approach to these matters, but it is not ours. Although the Premier may be trying to emulate certain other politicians, like Ronald Reagan and others, it is still not up to him to decide what is silly, right and wrong within this chamber. That whole matter was dismissed as if it was of little account.

Following that, my option was to put a question on the Order Paper, which I duly did. These were questions to the Treasurer relating to the secrecy of the budget. The questions were simply: Were there any changes in the budget document after it went to the Queen's Printer? What were those changes? What

section of the text did it refer to?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I ask the member for Rainy River just to make sure that his comments are relevant and germane to Bill 111.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The act is

an act to authorize the raising of money on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund. Obviously, the consolidated revenue fund is dealt with at great length in the budget document of the Treasurer. All the moneys raised by these iniquitous and unfair taxes are coming as a result of the Treasurer's budget.

We are simply seeking to lay on the table our concerns about that budget document and this bill that arises from it. That has always been the traditional approach. I am dealing exactly with the bill and matters relating to it and the budget.

The Acting Speaker: The clarification I would give you is that it is not a full budget debate. We are debating a bill at this point and it is the bill that is on the floor.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I certainly would not challenge, necessarily, your ruling, but it has been traditional to give us a fair amount of latitude. As long as I deal with the budgetary matter, which this is; and if the Treasurer wants to say that this is not as a result of his budget and the revenue moneys having to be raised on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund, surely I can refer him to that part of the budget where consolidated revenue plays a rather large part.

Does the Treasurer wish to make a comment about that?

The Acting Speaker: You have the floor. All I ask is that your comments and presentation be tied in to Bill 111.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly will relate to the bill.

I want to make it very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Treasurer, that we have some concerns about this particular bill; we have concerns about all the budgetary bills. We intend to talk about them fully.

Our aim is to get, particularly, the bill dealing with the broadening of the base of the retail sales tax before a committee of this Legislature. Then, those people who are being adversely affected by these increases or the expansion of the retail sales tax will be able to come in, have their say and tell the Treasurer, and through him the Premier and the rest of the cabinet, exactly what effect these measures are having on them as individuals in our society.

I was trying to lay the groundwork of accountability in the remarks I made earlier concerning the secrecy that the Treasurer is trying to cover up, the process by which the budget was put together and the questions I have asked as a member of this House that have not been answered by the Premier or the Treasurer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think this is an important point. I for one have always been willing to have debates in the broadest terms possible. I thought this bill was quite specific.

I have looked back into Hansard to see the amount of time devoted to it so that I was not just saying that by precedent it has been on the point before. Last year the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), who was then my critic, spent approximately 12 to 14 minutes; the critic from the New Democratic Party spent about the same amount of time. That is my recollection. They stuck to the points of the bill, and we did not have a wide ranging debate.

I think there is time, because the interim supply motion comes up shortly, and I must admit that by precedent the member has used that quite effectively for that forum. I do not disagree with it, but this is not, in my opinion, the purpose of this bill.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think what the Treasurer says with respect to last year is correct. But I recall, because I have spoken several times on this bill on borrowing on consolidated revenue, that we have had some very extensive debates.

I remind the Treasurer that this gives the government virtually unlimited power to borrow against some billion-dollar funds they have been squandering for their own purposes for a number of years. Every dollar of the deficit they employ is raised under the power of this bill in one way or another. Therefore, when one talks about raising money one can also talk about spending money.

I would suggest, from my experience over the past five or six years as finance critic for this party, that I have seen some very broad discussions because of the huge powers given to the government under this bill; and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that you are not exercising the prerogatives of the chair very wisely if you limit the debate, which goes fundamentally to --

The Acting Speaker: I have listened to the honourable member.

Mr. Peterson: No, hear me out.

The Acting Speaker: You have made a point of order. I have acknowledged that there is a bill on the floor, and the honourable member --

Mr. Peterson: This is not a housekeeping proposition; this is fundamental to the government's function.

The Acting Speaker: I have the floor. The member for Rainy River had the floor, and I have asked only that the honourable member keep his thoughts and discussion generally within Bill 111.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on this bill is sufficiently important that there should at least be a quorum of members in the House, and I would ask you to call in the members.

The Acting Speaker: There is a quorum.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Why would you do that?

Mr. Wrye: Because you have only six here out of seventy.

The Acting Speaker: To the honourable member, the count has been taken.

Mr. Wrye: Have you so totally lost touch that you do not have to have them be here?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I find the Treasurer's logic --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River has the floor and is speaking to Bill 111.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I find the Treasurer's logic and the argument he put forward as to the time spent on the bill about as logical as the contradictions in his budget. If he wants to suggest that every bill that has been debated at length in the past should have the same amount of time spent on it and vice versa, I suppose we can accommodate him but it really does not make much sense, Frank, and even you would appreciate that.

The Acting Speaker: Please refer to members by their seats or titles.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I find it passing strange that the Treasurer should try to treat this bill as not being quite as important a bill as the interim supply bill because the principle of the bill, amongst other things, is going to allow the Treasurer to borrow up to $2.25 billion. Incidentally, that comes to almost the same size as the deficit the Treasurer is projecting for this year.

I do not know if it is part of the Treasurer's whimsical sense of humour that those two figures should be the same, but it is interesting that the figure he has been using to borrow from the Canada pension plan, the teachers' superannuation fund and others, along with the amount of revenue over and in excess, has always equalled or come to about the same figure as his budget deficit winds up being. One can only speculate that if the Treasurer did not have these funds to draw on and to borrow from, the deficits might be a little smaller. He has been consistent. His predecessors over the years have always come out with the same figures, the same approach and they always work out that way.

We have talked in years past about the problems of borrowing from the Canada pension plan and the teachers' superannuation fund. My leader and predecessor in this job as critic has pointed out at length in his remarks over the years just what is going to happen when the day of reckoning comes for these plans.

Obviously, the first principle of these borrowings is that we are mortgaging the future of our children and their children because we are using the funds that are supposed to be set aside for pensions. We are borrowing them at less than market rate and at some point they are going to have to be repaid. We all know there is only one way for that to happen.

There are perhaps those on the other side who expect the dividends from Suncor to start paying the interest on the money we have borrowed from these funds, but the projections are about 20 years and the Treasurer will long be retired by that time. There is a problem with giving the government this kind of authority because, if we do, we are countenancing the kind of irresponsible management we have seen in the past.

At one point, we projected that the borrowings from the Canada pension plan would come to an end about 1983-84. That would be when the borrowings from the pension plan would be equal to the amount of interest we in Ontario owed on those previous borrowings. The money made available from that fund would just equal the interest which we owed and which we had to pay.

Obviously, there are some shenanigans going on between the Treasurer and perhaps his federal counterparts to do something about increasing the level of the CPP payments, but the fact remains that money which is being borrowed at less than market rate is going to have to be repaid at some point.

I draw attention to the teachers' superannuation fund. As the Speaker knows, in his other capacity as a private member of this Legislature and once a happy member of the standing committee on public accounts of the Ontario Legislature, we dealt with the matter of the teachers' superannuation fund when this Treasurer's predecessor, Mr. McKeough, was then Treasurer. I recall the Provincial Auditor, then Mr. Scott, pointing out in his report that there was a shortfall in the teachers' superannuation fund of about $1.2 billion. It was underfunded to that extent.

Mr. McKeough, the then Treasurer of Ontario, and a gentleman whose name I cannot recall, but he was a pension expert from the Treasury, came before the committee and said: "Not to worry. Sure we have to pay out this $1.2 billion, but we will just get it out of the consolidated revenue fund, if, as and when the money is needed. For instance, we are putting something like $50 million or $60 million into the fund to make up the shortfall in the teachers' superannuation fund."

The Treasurer of that day seemed to pretend, before the committee at least, and I am sure we can find it in the copies of Hansard of that committee, that the shortfall, the underfunding of the teachers' superannuation fund, was not a serious problem. For some reason, it was money we could pull out of thin air somehow and somewhere to make up that deficit. Every year we are putting money back into the teachers' superannuation fund. By this bill, we are giving authority for money to be raised in the consolidated revenue fund to be put back in, and at the same time we are borrowing money out of that very fund.

At the end of March 1982, that is the fiscal year 1981, the province owed $9.9 billion to the Canada pension fund, $4.75 billion to the teachers' superannuation fund, $1.3 billion to the Ontario municipal employees' retirement fund and $2.96 billion to the public service superannuation fund, for a total of $18.9 billion. Some time or other that money has to be paid back.

We have a bill before us that is going to give the Treasurer authority to borrow again from these funds. We simply cannot accept, given the government's management record, its wholly twisted sense of priorities, in terms of Suncor and the jet and advertising and public opinion polls and the air ambulance -- the Premier's jet that will be used for ambulance services --

Mr. Nixon: The only ambulance with a bar in the province, probably in the world.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is right, in this or any other jurisdiction. One wonders if it will be transporting the Treasurer home to Muskoka. I am sure the next thing that will happen is that they will be extending the airport --

Hon. F. S. Miller: It's already long enough.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I should know better than that. Of the 230 airports in Ontario, the jet can only land at 18 of them. Of course, one of them is in the Treasurer's riding. Charity begins at home.

I want to refer to why we have this bill before us. It is because of the mismanagement of the government over the years, particularly since this particular Treasurer became Treasurer. I do not want to go back through all the budgets and read everything, but I will recall to the honourable members that last year we heard, in the 1981 budget, that we were pausing -- that is the word I believe the Treasurer used -- in the search for our goal of a balanced budget.

It is interesting that in the 1982 budget we did not even hear the term "balanced budget." There was no reference to it. It was not another pause in our direction towards a balanced budget. There was simply no mention of it. It is also interesting, perhaps hypothetically, that in the 1981 budget there was a great foofaraw about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. Yet, supposedly it being the cornerstone of economic strategy in Ontario, there was no reference to it at all in this year's budget.

4 p.m.

I want to put on the record the increase in the public debt that is going to result from the budget and from the authority of this bill to borrow money.

In 1981, the estimate -- I am not sure we have the up-to-date figures; I am sure the Treasurer can tell us -- was $1,823,000,000, and the daily interest was about $4.9 million. The actual increase in the public debt was $1,838,000,000, on which the interest per day was $5 million. The estimate for 1982 is $2.23 billion. Those figures, if looked at as percentages, show that the 1982 estimated budget deficit is 124 per cent over the estimated 1981 deficit; that is, the Treasurer's best forecast of the 1981 deficit.

I predicted in an earlier speech that the deficit this year was going to be more than $2.2 billion. Now I would suggest it is going to be about $2.6 billion. Part of that, of course, is due to the increase we have allowed to the doctors. Depending on whose estimates one uses, that amounts to anywhere from $258 million to $350 million.

I want to say to the Treasurer, who is a former Minister of Health, I was most disturbed that we could find that kind of money to increase doctors' salaries when the best we could do for the disabled in the province, particularly those who need prosthetics and auxiliary devices such as artificial arms and legs, wheelchairs and so on, was to provide assistance up to the age of 18 years.

I say to the Treasurer very honestly that I cannot understand this government's priorities when it can do the things it has done with Suncor, with government advertising, with the polls it keeps hidden and locked up till they are of no value to anybody except the cabinet, and yet it cannot provide assistance such as prosthetic devices to those who need them.

The irony of that situation is that we will pay a doctor in the Ontario health insurance plan anywhere from $450 to $900 to remove somebody's arm or leg, but we will not pay to have it replaced by an artificial limb. To me, that does not make any kind of sense or logic. Certainly it is not humane.

With the riches that we still have in this province, despite everything those opposite have done, we can find $258 million to increase doctors' salaries, but we cannot find the money to help people who really need it. Those people, more than most, are going to be suffering from the expansion of the sales tax base, because they are at the bottom of the economic scale.

There is a man in my riding who is trying to support his wife and family. He has two artificial arms, which have to be replaced every six months because of chafing problems. Out of a small salary, he has to purchase those devices. Again, I wonder, where are the priorities of this government?

The Treasurer makes much of the triple-A rating of Ontario and does a lot of things with smoke and mirrors so that everything looks fine. He talks about nonpublic borrowing and says that, really, the only money he is going to borrow comes from the public borrowings of Ontario Hydro. But, in the end, the money he is borrowing and the money that is going to have to be paid back comes from only one place, essentially, and that is the taxpayer's pocket.

I agree with the Treasurer that over the years he has not been to the public market to borrow money to pay for the deficits of Ontario. But he has found a better pocket to pick.

Mr. Nixon: Almost a bottomless well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, he and his predecessors have certainly treated it that way.

Mr. Nixon: They are pumping it pretty well dry now.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Where is James Allan when you need him?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, where is Jim Allan?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Rainy River is being interrupted by his own members.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are just trying to help him.

Mr. Foulds: If you would prefer, we could heckle him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in 1979 the present Treasurer said: "Accordingly, this budget proposes to maintain a high quality of public services in Ontario; to help create more jobs; to provide incentives for economic growth and small business development; to continue our sound management of provincial spending, thereby helping to contain inflation; and to reduce the deficit."

In 1981, the Treasurer said: "In conclusion, this budget serves to maintain a required fiscal balance... and it maintains the province's commitment to balance the budget."

Of course, the deficit had gone up by 56 per cent or better between 1980 and 1981, but by using those well-known Tory smoke and mirrors --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not the projected deficit.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer has a point. He says, "Not the projected deficit." That is right. That raises a very interesting point, because we have asked to have information, the background studies, the economic forecasts on which the Treasurer's budgets have been based.

Because it is against the rules to say someone is misleading the House, I do not intend to say that, but it is passing strange that in the past five years and in the past four in particular, the projections of that Treasurer of the deficit in this province have not been accurate at all --

Hon. F. S. Miller: They have been lower in all but one year.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Baloney. Let us talk about last year, the year before the election.

Mr. Ruston: He cooked the books.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Somebody said he cooked the books, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe the Treasurer has cooked the books. He simply puts his optimistic, rose-coloured glasses on. His friend was in the gallery earlier, by the way.

Mr. Nixon: To whom are you referring?

Mr. T. P. Reid: He wears pink-coloured something else, I think.

But the Treasurer always projects a very optimistic level of revenues. He always is very optimistic about the small size of his deficit.

It is interesting to see how other jurisdictions do their budgets. I recall, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you are breathless to hear this, when I was on a committee of the rules of the Legislature when I was a nouveau member here -- that is, in case the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was here, back in the 1960s -- all committees went to California to look at how the rules of that assembly operated and how they did their budgets.

It was interesting in the extreme that all the information that went into the setting of a state budget in California was made available to the opposition party. In fact, they were given as great if not greater resources so they could do their own economic forecasts and criticize the budget.

We have not asked for that kind of thing. But what we do ask for is the projections and the background papers on which the budget is based and on which these bills come before us in this Legislature so we may know whether the Treasurer has his rose-coloured glasses on or whether he is being a little more optimistic than we on this side would be, given the reality of the economic situation in this country and in the world.

I was interrupted by the Treasurer. He said in his 1981 budget, "In conclusion, this budget serves to maintain a required fiscal balance ... and it maintains the province's commitment to balance the budget" -- even though the deficit went to $1.8 billion.

4:10 p.m.

In 1982, the best the Treasurer could come up with in his concluding statement was, "Moreover, when our revenues are reduced because of slow economic growth and substantial federal cutbacks, I cannot conjure up a way of paying for a decent standard of public services that does not involve some increases in tax levels or the deficit." There was no mention of the balanced budget at all and no mention even as to whether there is still a commitment to that approach on behalf of the government and the Treasurer.

It is interesting how things change. We have noted that as a result of the budget in 1981, personal income tax has gone up by two per cent this year, which, of course, does not show up in this year's budget. In the 1981 budget, the Treasurer increased personal income tax by two per cent in that year and put in motion an automatic increase in 1982.

That kind of taxation is what bothers us on this side. We are bothered about the accountability for the Treasurer's actions before this Legislature and the people of Ontario. That is why we want to ensure some of these tax bills that are laid before us -- this may be one of them, but certainly there are others -- should go to an economic or finance committee of this Legislature. That committee should have the power to call witnesses so there will be an accountability directly to the public and to the people who are being affected by these increases and by such tax borrowing as we see in Bill 111.

There is a theory, which I find most outmoded and which is called ministerial responsibility and government and executive accountability, that says we are responsible and accountable to the people for the actions we take. The Treasurer said it in answer to questions put during question period today. He said, "I am prepared to be accountable for my budget."

The realities of the world and the political world have changed drastically so that all these matters get lost in the reporting of the war in the Falklands, the war in the Middle East and the myriad of communications and information we are now deluged with in terms of television, the newspapers and radio. The information revolution has minimized what used to be very important events, such as these debates in the Legislature on matters affecting the government's accountability.

The whole spectrum of responsibility and accountability has become so diffused that people do not get to hold the Premier and the Treasurer accountable except when an election comes along. In the meantime, because they do not have the opportunity to make their views known on a direct, personal basis in terms of being able to come before a legislative committee on something as important as these measures, a lot of people out there are losing their faith in the democratic system and in what they used to refer to as responsible government.

The sad thing is that there is no one who knows it better than those people on the government side of the House, because they have been practitioners of this art of escaping responsibility and accountability since I have been here. This Treasurer and his Premier have been known to blame everything on the federal government, but the Treasurer and the Premier are not blameless.

There is a certain amount of truth in what the Treasurer says on occasion but, at the same time as he is blaming the federal government for the position he finds himself in, he is passing on those same tax increases to the municipalities and the boards of education. He has done so previously, as have his predecessors before him. The Premier and the Treasurer find themselves on pretty sandy ground when they start blaming somebody else for the economic ills of this province.

It should be a concern of all members of this Legislature that the people are getting turned off in our democratic society because they do not see Premiers or Treasurers, either at this level or higher up, being held accountable for their actions. They have too many other concerns on their minds and these matters get pushed aside.

The government of the day, whichever one happens to be in power, works on the basis that if it hits people hard in the first couple of years of any administration, it has two years, and certainly the last year, to bring in a good budget, give the store away and, therefore, the people will come out and vote for it again as they have in the past. An indication of that is in the last election, when 57 per cent of the people of the province bothered to turn out to vote because the Premier, the Treasurer and the rest of their colleagues in government had convinced everybody there really was not very much going on in the province.

The press also does not seem to be particularly interested in the budget debate. I recall that the remarks of my NDP colleague and myself found their way on to page 34, in the third

section of the Globe and Mail, about a week after our remarks were made. One had to be an avid newspaper reader, such as I am, to have found them. With all respect, I do not think the contributions we made were so bad that they deserved to be found directly under the advertisements for companions wanted, trusses and other ads in the newspaper.

It is frustrating to try to hold the government accountable, to make the government be reasonable, not only for us in this chamber, as we see it, but also for individuals in society to have an impact on what is going on.

I have never understood it -- perhaps it is because I have been in opposition -- but, as a private member in my riding, if I made a mistake, I would say, "I'm sorry; I made a mistake." Of course, I never have made a mistake in 15 years, but I would be prepared to say that. Our federal Minister of Finance obviously has made some pretty serious mistakes. I have said that before.

The Treasurer in this province has made some pretty serious mistakes too. He should be a big enough man to stand in his place and say: "We did not realize what impact some of these things were going to have on people. We did not realize the economy was as bad as it was. We are willing to put these aside at this time to give some relief to those people who are hardest hit by the economic situation in Ontario today."

It is not going to be the end of the Tory majority. It is not going to be the end of the Treasurer's career. But if the Treasurer does not change some of the budgetary measures he has introduced and is introducing by way of some of these tax bills, it will be the end of his career and it will be unfortunate. He will go down in history as Fagin Frank.

Fagin was the fellow in Oliver Twist who taught the young people to go out and be pickpockets. The Treasurer is doing that by spreading the base and making tax collectors of everybody selling meals -- people in camps, people providing Meals on Wheels, people in school cafeterias -- and people who fix everything from lawn mowers to refrigerators. He is the Fagin training all these people to go out and pick the pockets of the people of Ontario yet again.

4:20 p.m.

Back in 1979 and 1980, I believe, the Treasurer's focus was that we had to do something about inflation. He knows full well that any tax increase is inflationary, and yet he comes in with not only the kinds of increases that are inflationary but also the most regressive taxes he could find -- taxes that are going to affect the lower- and lower-middle-class people the hardest, because he is now taxing virtually everything they need on a daily basis.

At the same time as he is doing this, he is spending money on things like Suncor and $40 million on government advertising to maintain this government in power: "Preserve it, conserve it" and all the rest. Then he comes in and expects us to vote for a bill that is going to give him the authority to raise $2.25 billion. We are not prepared to do that, as I have already indicated.

I did want to refer to Ontario's Tax Structure: Options for Change, in which the Treasurer threatens to change the method of collecting the Ontario health insurance plan premium tax, but I will save that debate for another day.

I would like to talk to the Treasurer about the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and ask him how much of the $2.25 billion that is going to be raised by this bill is going to go into that program.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is in the printed estimates.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I realize that; but we have a problem here in that we see all the smoke and mirrors the government runs by us and the public of Ontario. The Treasurer will recall that just before the election in 1981 we heard the grand announcement about BILD. The government had found that this program and this use of the smoke and mirrors were very effective because they had done it in setting up the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Members may recall that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), my colleague and friend from Kenora, had made a mess of the Ministry of Natural Resources and, therefore, they had to find something for him to do; so the Premier set up the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

But what was it going to do? What we did in effect was to set up a new layer of bureaucracy, and presumably we shifted all the money that was in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, some that was in the Ministry of Natural Resources and some that was in other programs, and we said, "All right now, that is in the Minister of Northern Affairs budget."

What did we do with all the civil servants and the presumed experts? Let us deal with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for instance. The people who design the roads, the people who know where the roads should go -- the engineers, all the expert and professional staff -- stayed in MTC; but, of course, we had to have somebody in the Ministry of Northern Affairs who was the road expert for northern Ontario. This meant any road proposed by MTC had to be approved by the person in the Ministry of Northern Affairs, who did not necessarily have any competence in that field but was getting paid a very reasonable salary.

In fact, this added another layer of bureaucracy and slowed down the whole process, and there was another hand taking a bite out of the taxpayers' dollar as it went by. I do not mean this unkindly to those people who wound up in Northern Affairs, but all the people whom the other ministers did not want in their ministries got dumped into Northern Affairs at that time. It has been rectified to some extent, but that is what happened.

Then the minister could go around the north and say, "I am building a road for you." The money had already been allocated in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and we would have got the road in any case, but in this way two public relations outfits -- that of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and particularly that of the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is nonpareil at this aspect of the game -- could announce that roads would be built here and there.

That worked very successfully. The people of northern Ontario were impressed, because the Minister of Transportation and Communications did not just make an announcement or send his parliamentary assistant to Timmins to announce it; rather, the Minister of Northern Affairs himself, in his buckskin beaded shirt, came in on norOntair and made the announcement himself. He, the Minister of Northern Affairs, was bringing them this new road.

He does that quite often in his own riding, where he has built a road from nowhere to nowhere, one of the greater engineering feats of our time.

My point is that this ploy was successful. They did it by moving the mirrors -- as in Jimmy Breslin's book about one of the presidential elections. Breslin wrote about the blue smoke and mirrors, and how one just keeps on cranking up the blue smoke and changing the mirrors around to get a different perception. The colour blue is a coincidence but quite interesting.

Mr. Nixon: Do you have the book with you?

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, but I have it. I will lend it to the member. It is in large print.

Mr. Breithaupt: And there are some pictures.

Mr. Nixon: I wish Bud Gregory were here to make you withdraw that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The use of smoke and mirrors has been very successful in the United States, and we know the Premier and certain members of his cabinet are great admirers of the American way of politics. It was used so successfully in setting up the Ministry of Northern Affairs that the Premier and the cabinet of the day decided they would run that one by the people of Ontario, and the gullible press, again.

They needed something so as to look fresh and healthy for the election in 1981. Having had the successful startup through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, they came up with the Board of Industrial Leadership and D