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

May 25, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L015 - Mon 25 May 1987 / Lun 25 mai 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RICK HANSEN

CYCLING

TECHNOLOGY FUND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

CENTRE FOR LABOUR STUDIES

TABLING OF INFORMATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACID RAIN

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

RESPONSES

ACID RAIN

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

ACID RAIN

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

EDUCATION FUNDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

PUBLIC SERVICE

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

VISITORS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MULTICULTURALISM

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

MULTICULTURALISM

HIGHWAY SAFETY

APPORTIONMENT OF EDUCATION TAXES

POLICE PURSUITS

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

SPEAKER'S RULING

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RICK HANSEN

Mr. Shymko: On November 6, 1986, this Legislative Assembly was privileged to welcome in our chamber Rick Hansen, a young man whose heroic campaign to help the physically handicapped has come to symbolize the best in humanity. We honoured him then by naming an Ontario township in his name.

I speak on behalf of all honourable colleagues as we join with millions of Canadians in paying tribute to Rick Hansen's completion on Saturday, May 23, of his international wheelchair odyssey.

After two years, two months and 40,000 kilometres through 34 countries, Rick Hansen has broken the insurmountable obstacles of time and distance to eliminate once and for all the term "disabled" from our vocabulary. By comparison with him and with those members of our society who are physically challenged every day of their lives, it is we more often than not who are the truly disabled and the handicapped.

Rick Hansen's message to all of us, including politicians, is to challenge our fear of failure and to take up the courage to face seemingly insurmountable obstacles so that dreams can indeed come true. All of us, on whatever side of our House, must address the plight of those men and women who, on a daily basis, face the challenges beyond certain obstacles that some of us cannot even imagine. Rick Hansen's strength has given them faith. His example has restored faith in conquering obstacles of time and distance.

CYCLING

Mrs. Grier: As a cyclist, I have always felt myself to be a second-class citizen on Ontario's roads and streets; as a pedestrian, I am offended by the careless disregard that other cyclists have for my safety; and as a politician, I have been inundated with complaints from pedestrians about dangerous cyclists on the sidewalks and with complaints from the local police at their frustration in attempting to control cyclists.

The sidewalks in our towns and cities belong to pedestrians and only pedestrians. The roads belong equally to motorists and bicyclists. Today I will be introducing a private members' bill that will make our roads and sidewalks safer for all. My bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to require that when asked to do so by a police officer, a cyclist must produce some sort of identification, even simply his or her correct name or address. Under the present act, unless the cyclist chooses to produce identification, police are helpless when cyclists ride on sidewalks, ignore stop signs or go through red lights.

Cycling deserves our support and promotion. Cycling reduces traffic congestion, is pollution-free and increases physical fitness, but in the interests of safety, cycling must be done according to the Highway Traffic Act.

The amendments I am proposing today are ones that have been long sought by groups concerned with pedestrian safety and by cycling proponents such as the Ontario Cycling Association and the city of Toronto cycling committee. I urge the government to support my bill and to ensure that it is dealt with quickly.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Brandt: On April 22, 1986, the government announced with a great deal of fanfare the formation of the Premier's Council. To quote from the press release at that particular time, the council was to steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation, very high-sounding words.

Ostensibly, this council and the high technology fund were to close the gap with an infusion of some $1-billion in funds, as the minister is well aware. Behind the headlines we have the truth. Some $2 million has been spent to date on high-technology activities. To put it into context, that is about one per cent of the amount that the government has spent on the estimated 4,000 new civil servants who have been hired over the course of the past two years. Those 4,000 civil servants will not close the technological gap to help Ontario to become more competitive with the Japanese, the West Germans or our United States trading partners.

I hope the government enjoyed the headlines it received while it got them, because flashy, slick press announcements will do nothing to improve Ontario's competitiveness.

The government's $1-billion high technology fund to date is nothing more than a $1-billion bust. The jobs for Ontario's future are dependent upon the activities that are necessary in that area, and I would urge the government to get on with the job it has talked about and done nothing about.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, like I, will find it totally bizarre to think that this government allows insurance companies to find people guilty, not by reason of their driving records but by association.

A young woman aged 24 and single is given a rate of approximately $800 per year for her insurance. A week later she turns 25 and gets married, and to and behold, the rate now will be $2,300. Why? Not because of her driving record, which happens to be clean, but because her husband has a driving record that is blemished; therefore, she must pay for his poor driving. That is absolutely astounding.

What really galls me and many motorists, of course, is that this patently unfair condition is supported by the government. This minister cannot provide justice for that woman, who is now considering annulling the marriage because she needs the insurance in order to drive her car and continue working. This government is contributing to marital breakdowns.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: Last week, the people of Ontario were promised some $375 million as this government's response to its own admission of a housing crisis. We can only hope this year's commitment to do something with these announcements is more substantial than it was in the last year, when the minister only spent 80 per cent of what he had announced, or in the year before, when only 90 per cent of his announcements were acted upon.

Given the record, given the $92 million that has been lifted from the Ministry of Housing's budgets in two years, and given that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is only going to meet his deficit reduction targets by lifting even more money from budgets that are already announced, it is obvious where a good portion of this money the Treasurer wants is going to come from. It will come from a ministry that is only good at making announcements.

It will come from a ministry that rejected every single application from Burlington last year, when the city had a vacancy rate of zero and the minister had close to $70 million left over in his budget. It will come from a ministry that promised 5,000 Renterprise units back in 1985, but has seen only 1,483 of those units built. It will come from a ministry that has announced Project 3000 twice, and in the six months has allocated less than a third of the units and built none.

We have a crisis because this minister and this government only understand the value of an announcement and not the value of actually providing shelter. How else does one explain a ministry that will increase its staff by nearly 200 civil servants at a cost that would have provided 200 new rental units in Ontario?

CENTRE FOR LABOUR STUDIES

Mr. Warner: Last week, I raised the issue of the Centre for Labour Studies, which the board of directors at Humber College is attempting to terminate. A week has gone by and there is still no leadership from the minister. In fact, when I raised the question, members will recall the minister did not even know what the Centre for Labour Studies was, let alone whether he should help keep the doors open.

I find it astonishing to believe that this highly successful program is being cancelled because of a funding problem, since the annual cost to Humber College is approximately $50,000 of the college's budget of $75 million. Perhaps the truth behind this devastating blow to organized labour is that the college does not understand or appreciate the needs and aspirations of working people. Neither, it would appear, does the Minister of Skills Development and Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara).

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature the questions we have had in Orders and Notices. I have had one for almost a year now which has not been replied to. I think it is the government's responsibility to make sure all these questions are replied to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACID RAIN

Hon. Mr. Bradley: On December 17, 1985, I announced our government's Countdown Acid Rain program. It is a plan to cut acid-rain-causing pollution from Ontario sources by 60 per cent by 1994. It requires the four major acid rain polluters to reduce their emissions by two thirds during this time.

With its deep cuts and prompt, staged timetable, Countdown Acid Rain is the most progressive program of its kind in North America or Europe.

I am pleased to rise today to inform the House of improvements which cabinet has made to the program, in accordance with our original commitment to seek public comment on the abatement approach.

Two weeks ago, following public hearings, the select committee on the environment released its report on acid rain in Ontario which contained a number of recommendations.

Foremost among the committee's suggestions was the elimination of the banking provision for Ontario Hydro. This provision said that, in any year that Hydro's actual emissions were less than the regulated limit, the shortfall could be banked with a portion eligible for emission in a subsequent year.

Our government agrees with the committee's suggestion. We have removed the banking provision and not replaced it with any similar clause. Like the other acid rain polluters, Ontario Hydro will simply have to do what it takes to meet the law.

The committee also suggested that the semi-annual reports on pollution abatement research and development, which Ontario Hydro has been voluntarily submitting, be expanded and made a regulatory requirement. Our government agrees with this. We have included such a reporting requirement in Ontario Hydro's acid rain regulation.

The committee made a number of other suggestions. Some of them are already being done, but the committee was possibly unaware of the activity. Some are addressed by initiatives to be made public in the near future. Others are under consideration in my ministry.

I thank the environment committee chairman, the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight), and all the members who contributed to the committee's acid rain report.

With our Countdown Acid Rain program refined, I will take our accomp lishments and our demands for reciprocal action to the United States. I will press in every way I can for the United States to adopt a similarly tough abatement program. Such action is essential to protect the environment and renewable resources of Ontario and, indeed, all of eastern North America.

I will let our neighbours know that the people and the government of Ontario will not accept research and promises and delay as a substitute for pollution abatement action.

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to inform members of the Legislature that aerial spraying against forest insect pests in Ontario resumed over the weekend.

As members may know, my ministry temporarily suspended spraying operations about 10 days ago while laboratory analysis was being performed on the province's stock of biological insecticide, bacillus thuringiensis, known as Bt. I ordered the analysis after we learned that trace levels of other bacteria had been discovered in a portion of our Bt stock.

Bt is a living culture of bacteria which is made through a fermentation process. It is not unusual to have the insecticide contain small amounts of bacteria other than Bt. Our tests confirmed that some other bacteria existed in all the Bt tested; however, it was not hazardous to health or to the environment.

The test results were reviewed with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and they all agreed there was no danger of adverse health or environmental impact.

The Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee has reviewed the test results and concurred that the Bt formulations pose no risk. I have also been advised by the Department of National Health and Welfare that there are no concerns from that department in terms of adverse health effects.

Consequently, the suspension on aerial spraying was lifted on Friday. Over the weekend we sprayed almost 6,000 hectares for gypsy moth and spruce budworm. Spraying for jack pine budworm will likely begin June 1, weather permitting.

RESPONSES

ACID RAIN

Mr. Gillies: The announcement today by the Minister of the Environment regarding the Ontario Hydro banking provision, which has been raised in this House for a period of weeks now by the New Democratic Party Environment critic and myself, is an admission by the minister that the inclusion of this provision in his program was a mistake and that the environment committee and the opposition critics were right. It is not a day too soon that this absurd provision has been dropped from the acid rain program.

In congratulating the select committee on the environment, I am sure the minister was just a little forgetful in not congratulating and thanking the members of that committee who first raised the issue, my colleagues the members for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), Brock (Mr. Partington) and Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier). I am sure all members of the House would like to congratulate and thank the members who first identified this as the fatal weakness in the Countdown Acid Rain program.

The minister has taken the first step in bringing Ontario Hydro into line with the provisions that apply to all the other major sources of hydrocarbon pollution in the province, but I want to say to the minister that we believe more information is required. When Ontario Hydro appeared before the select committee, it indicated that in the event the banking provision was scrapped, it did foresee four possible options for ensuring continued security of supply of energy for our province, in the event of a malfunction of equipment, that it hoped would not see an increase in hydrocarbon emission of the type that was allowed under the banking but is now not allowed.

I want to say to the minister that the people from Ontario Hydro were not forthcoming with the committee in telling it exactly what their plans were. We believe the government has an obligation to get the information from Hydro and tell this House whether the option is going to be the increased use of low-sulphur coal. Are they going to go for the scrubber option? Are they going to go for the option of bringing in out-of-province energy at such times that it is needed? We believe this is important information that Hydro should share with this House and the people of Ontario.

This announcement is welcome, albeit belated, and is perhaps a demonstration that occasionally, when politicians such as the members of the select committee on the environment have the courage of their convictions to put forward suggestions, even Ontario Hydro can be brought to heel by a committee of this Legislature.

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: I am astounded at the statement today by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). He says he wants to inform members of the Legislature that aerial spraying has resumed. I was shocked that he never informed the Legislature that it had been stopped. He never made a statement in the Legislature over this shocking program.

We have now had two years of foul-ups, tendering malpractices, questionable tendering practices, airplanes coming in from the United States, airplanes coming in from Quebec. Ontario operators have been shocked at the tendering practices of his ministry for the second year in a row.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on this program of bacillus thuringiensis spraying, I want to tell you that in spite of the minister's stated and avowed -- and I assume he speaks for the government -- preference for spraying chemical all over our forests, as he has said loud and clear in every

section of northern Ontario that he wanted to spray chemical, with all these foul-ups in the program, one now has to wonder whether there is a serious commitment to making Bt work, in spite of the fact that last year the decision to follow the policy we had initiated in 1985 and go with Bt and give it a chance to work was forced upon this government by the opposition parties.

One of the most successful spray programs was in 1985 when, even though the minister insisted he preferred chemical, he was forced into using Bt. There was a very successful program in 1986. Again, when we see the problems with the Bt program for 1987, when we see these kinds of foul-ups, we now have to question whether he is serious and whether the ministry is serious about the commitment to Bt spraying.

It really makes us wonder whether Captain Chemical -- and I assume he speaks for the government -- is serious about the commitment to the environment at the same time as the commitment to the forest.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Grier: We certainly welcome the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) with respect to the removal of Hydro's banking privilege. When the minister first announced his Countdown Acid Rain program in December 1985, we pointed out that the provision of banking was a major loophole in the program. Gradually over the months and years, other voices were added to the cry and eventually the report of the select committee on the environment was unanimous. I am very glad indeed that the minister has listened and responded.

I note that the minister, in his statement, reiterates his commitment to seeking public comment on the abatement approach, but I regret that in his statement there is no commitment to further public scrutiny of the regulations as they are changed in the future. I remind him that this was another of the recommendations of the select committee. The select committee especially wanted an opportunity for public discussion of the abatement plans to be submitted by the major polluters at the end of 1988.

In the case of Ontario Hydro, it is particularly important that the opportunity for public scrutiny be provided so we can be very sure that what we are getting from Hydro is the best available technology and not merely a substitution of nuclear power for fossil-generated power.

I am a little puzzled by the minister's statement that the committee was possibly unaware of other things the government is doing in view of the fact that we had the minister as a witness before the committee, and his staff monitored the committee all through our hearings. If we were discussing recommendations and there was action we ought to have been made aware of, I do not know why he did not tell us because we were certainly open to hearing whatever he had to say.

I think the acceptance of this committee's major recommendation is once again proof that minority government has been good for the environment of Ontario, and long may it continue.

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the effort of the minister to be open with the Legislature with regard to the spraying program of his ministry across the province. I point out, however, that the announcement the minister made in the House was made known through the media throughout the province over the weekend, so this is hardly new information for us in the Legislature. I hope the minister will be as forthcoming or even more forthcoming with his plans with regard to herbicide spraying across Ontario's forests, particularly with regard to the spraying of 2,4-D in this province this year.

In response to the written question I put in Orders and Notices, the minister's staff, under the signature of the minister, provided a completely inadequate answer with regard to the places across the province where 2,4-D might be sprayed. It was simply a list of the various regions of the ministry across Ontario with the number of hectares to be sprayed in each region, which certainly does not tell us what areas specifically are to be sprayed with 2,4-D.

It is most unfortunate that, unlike the experience with bacillus thuringiensis, the ministry has decided to proceed with chemical herbicide spraying in Ontario despite the fact that the federal Department of National Health and Welfare is still considering the appropriateness of the approval of 2,4-D in Canada. This ministry has decided to proceed, apparently with the agreement of the Minister of the Environment, even though we do not yet have a final statement by the federal government about the safety of 2,4-D. Would that the minister would err on the side of caution in that regard as he has with regard to insecticide spraying.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Grossman: We must come back to the theme we were talking about last week, and for several months for that matter, and that is the pension money that was taken from the disabled people in this province. In that regard, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

One thing that seems to have been forgotten in the discussion over the moneys the federal government sent on to the disabled people in this province is that this money was not a government grant, as is the guaranteed annual income system. It is not a welfare payment of any sort. It is a return of Canada pension plan moneys to disabled people who paid into that Canada pension plan. In other words, having looked at the pension plan, the federal government deduced that the contributions paid in by the disabled when they were working entitled them to a $150-a-month increase in their pensions.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Grossman: Can the minister attempt to explain to this House why he and his colleagues took $100 of the $150 in pension money sent by the federal government to the disabled pensioners in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We did not take any of the CPP money that was forwarded to the disabled. All of that money went to the disabled.

As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, there are two groups of disabled people in Ontario who receive CPP funds. Some of them are those who receive sufficient CPP funds that they are not eligible for top-up money from our family benefits program. There are others who do not receive sufficient CPP funds so they do become eligible for top-up funds from our family benefits program. Regardless of which of those two groups the money went to, they kept that money. Those who are eligible for top-up funds in our family benefits program continued to get those up to an agreed-upon Gains level.

Nothing has changed. They got the full $150. The top-up money that we gave them was adjusted to the Gains level -- the same for everybody.

Mr. Grossman: Surely the minister will agree that the adjustment he made in his program was to say that for 13,000 disabled people in this province, their pensions have gone up by $150 and therefore he has decided to reduce their Gains-D -- guaranteed annual income system for the disabled -- cheque by $100; thus meaning, in simple terms, that of the $150 increase they got on the pensions they had paid into, the minister reduced their payments from this government by $100 so they would end up $50 a month ahead of the game.

When he has had $8 billion to spread around this province in two years, he decided to reduce his cheques by $100 a month. Can the minister deny that simple, clear fact?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is not as the Leader of the Opposition describes it.

Mr. Grossman: How so?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is an agreed Gains ceiling in this province.

Any disabled person in this province who receives from other sources, including CPP, funds below that agreed Gains ceiling, does get top-up money from the provincial government program. Whatever other resources they have are taken into consideration in determining how much provincial top-up money they get. That has not changed.

Mr. Grossman: Categorically that information is not correct. The federal government, by virtue of this letter, changed those rules totally and completely. The federal government said the $150 a month was to be totally exempt from the ceiling. They said that specifically so that the minister, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) could not hijack $100 out of the $150 a month that was intended for these disabled persons on account of an increase in their pensions, pensions that they paid into and earned -- and the minister took $100 of it.

Just to clarify this issue, could the minister agree that the letter from the federal minister exempted the total $150 from the ceiling he just referred to? Did it or did it not?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In gross dollar terms, not net dollar terms, the amount of money that the province did not have to top up as a result of the federal initiative was about $18 million. It was a decision of this government to take that $18 million, multiply it by three, bring it up to a total of $54 million -- gross dollars -- and allocate $54 million to all 85,000 Gains-D recipients in this province. In other words, the federal government flowed $18 million; the provincial government flowed $54 million. That is a heck of a difference.

Mr. Grossman: The minister's position is that to give money to the disabled, he has to take it from other disabled. They have not got unspent money from the high-tech fund. They take money from one group of disabled and give it to another group of disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? The standing orders allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask two questions and the leader of the New Democratic Party to ask two questions. Will you place your second question?

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Treasurer. Last week, in the House and in the budget, he told us he would not this year be advancing $330 million in funding to the school boards as he did last year. Could he tell the House why he decided to change his policy and not send $300-million advance funding to the school boards this year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will recall that over the past seven or eight years the cushion of advanced funds available to the school boards has varied from seven per cent down to three per cent at the hands of his predecessor, and then from three per cent up to 12 per cent during the years of the Liberal administration. The requirements for the 12 per cent required the $330 million as a one-time payment.

The member can pursue it with the officials of the Treasury if I cannot satisfy him -- and I am afraid that I cannot -- when I say to him that it is a one-time payment that gives them that cushion until we remove it. I do not want to remove it, as the predecessor government did as a budgetary restraint measure back in the time of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), but we do feel the 12 per cent is necessary in order to assist the school boards in meeting their financial requirements early in their fiscal year.

Mr. Grossman: I come back to the initial question. We understand what the Treasurer did this year, which was to improve the cash flow and send some money in advance, for the reasons he has quite properly laid out. But in his budget of last week setting out his intentions for this current fiscal year, he said he was going to stop that policy and not send the cash advance.

The Treasurer is shaking his head. In answering this question, he might refer to page 64, table C6, where it shows "Grant Flow Improvement" for 1986-1987 as $330 million. The "Budget Plan" for this current year is zero. My question to the Treasurer is not what happened previously; it is just to ask him why he has changed the policy to eliminate the advance flow payment for school boards this year from $330 million down to zero, as reported in the budget.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will notice, when he examines the table, that the grants for school boards have shown the usual advances. As a matter of fact, they are 25 per cent higher than they were during the budget immediately previous to the Liberal administration. The $330 million is listed on a separate line as an adjunct that increases that cushion to 12 per cent. It is not payable year by year; it is simply a part of the program that provides this assistance on a continuing basis and requires no further budgetary action unless, God forbid, we decide in the future to reduce it the way the member's people did.

Mr. Grossman: If that is the Treasurer's position, then one must conclude by reading page 64, where he shows the total transfers to the school boards, that in 1986-1987 -- however the Treasurer slices it -- he is sending $3.787 billion to the school boards and this current fiscal year he is sending $3.726 billion to the school boards, or in other words, a net reduction of $61 million in cash flow to the school boards year over year.

Can the Treasurer deny the reality that as a result of whatever changes he wants to explain, the school boards this year will be getting a cash flow $61 million lower than last year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I simply reiterate for the third or fourth time that the honourable member will be aware that the increase in the general legislative grants is as I have described. The $330 million is to provide a one-time-only cushion of 12 per cent and it will continue to be to the advantage of the school boards until we decide to remove that advantage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South would like to ask a question.

Mr. Rae: I would not mind.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. On Friday, a well-known revolutionary organization, the Toronto Taxicab Brokerages Association, which was represented by that rabid Trotskyite John Tory, said the solution to the current insurance crisis affecting cab drivers was, in fact, a public plan.

With the basic rates for cab drivers in Winnipeg at $2,005 and those in Vancouver at $2,800, and with the Facility Association rate in Toronto now running at $9,500 and rising up over $10,000 and $12,000 for many drivers, I wonder if the minister can say who is the Minister of Financial Institutions to say that John Tory and the Toronto Taxicab Brokerages Association are wrong?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As far as John Tory is concerned, I will let my friends in the official opposition account for his statements, but as far as the taxicab drivers are concerned, that is an area we are concerned about. We announced we were going to reduce immediately their rates in the Facility Association by 10 per cent, but the leader of the third party is continuing to do what he always does, which shows he does not understand the insurance business. If you compare Manitoba or British Columbia, what you have to do -- and I throw out this challenge to him again -- is to have those insurance agencies quote on taxi drivers in Toronto and see what kind of rates you get.

Mr. Rae: I want to talk about some other people who do not know anything about the insurance business. The policy of a cab driver called Faiz Mohammed just came up for renewal. Last year, he paid $3,600. His renewal this year is for $9,700. A year ago, apparently, he had a $400 claim. He cannot afford to pay the renewal, so he is out of business.

Lawrence Isenberg has a small fleet. Three years ago, he was able to get coverage for his cars, with collision coverage, for a per car rate of $1,102 for six months. I am sure he does not know anything about the insurance business either. He is just a cab driver trying to drive a cab. I am just trying to do a job too. This year, the best quote he could get was $4,509 per car for six months.

What I want to ask the minister is, if even the people who are working in small business themselves are saying they want to get some access to justice and the way they feel most comfortable about that is getting it through public insurance, why does the minister continue to use every reactionary argument in the book against the solution that makes sense and that even the small business community itself is starting to talk about as the answer to its problem?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have announced that we are setting up a rate review board. We are also setting up an insurance advocate. When that is in place, anyone who thinks he requires redress will be able to have it.

To address the leader of the third party's proposal, I do not know whether he is suggesting that every taxpayer in Ontario should help subsidize the taxi industry in Ontario. I do not know whether that is what he is suggesting, but if it is, why does he not say so?

Mr. Rae: I will tell the minister what I think. I think cab drivers ought to be able to get insurance for less than $200 a week. What does the minister think? That is the question. The question is the rates.

Mr. Speaker: Minister?

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my third supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Oh, does the member have a question?

Mr. Rae: That was just put in there for effect.

I want to ask the minister a question. With respect to the rate review board, on October 14, 1986, the minister, in answer to questions from my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), said that if we had the same kind of rate review board structure as they had in Alberta, he figured Ontario drivers would be paying -- and I am quoting from Hansard - "If that plan were in effect in Ontario, during the past five years the people of Ontario would have paid from eight per cent to 39 per cent more than they pay now."

I want to ask the minister: Is that the kind of rate review structure he is talking about for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is one of the reasons we are not implementing that kind of rate review board. We are going to bring in a rate review board that is truly going to be a rate review board. All that review board does is to pass it through, and that would have cost the taxpayers of Ontario a lot of money. We are going to implement a rate review board that will be responsive; it will protect the consumers of Ontario; and when the member sees it, he will be able to support it, which I hope he will.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It goes back to some of the questions we raised following the budget announcement about child care. We are still trying to get a handle on exactly what the government has announced, because I can tell the minister the director of his child care branch has given us different answers than he appears to have given us in the House.

Perhaps I could ask the question this way. Of the $26 million he has announced this year as new money, how much is going to be used for capital expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Approximately $2.5 million.

Mr. Rae: If $2.5 million is what the minister is allocating for capital expenditure, it is perhaps worth pointing out that it costs between $5,000 and $10,000 to create a child care space, depending on whether construction or renovation is creating the space. The difficulty I have is trying to figure out how many new spaces the minister is in fact talking about. The minister is quoted in many newspapers as saying that Ontario needs 100,000 new day care spaces. Can he tell us how much the $2.5 million, and the $23.5 million in operating costs, is going to produce in terms of new spaces?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind the leader of the third party that in addition to the $26 million, there was also a budget allocation of $33 million spread over three years, for capital allocation only. Therefore, it is assumed that $11 million of that $33 million will be allocated in the current fiscal year. The $2.5 million of the $26 million and the $11 million of the $33 million have to be combined to get the total capital budget.

I would also point out to the member that the figure he quotes for capital spaces is correct if we are building completely new capital spaces, and some of those will be built. But in a number of cases we will be expanding and enhancing existing capital space. In those cases, the cost for space is less. It is our hope to put in approximately 5,000 spaces over the next couple of years.

Mr. Rae: At 5,000 spaces, it will take 20 years for the government to meet its objective of 100,000 spaces. The minister said over a couple of years, so we are now talking 40 years in terms of meeting the objective of 100,000 spaces.

Recognizing that, according to the statistics, there are nearly 350,000 mothers in the labour force who have children between the ages of one month and five years, how can the minister stand in his place and say that what he is going to be doing is creating 5,000 new spaces over the next two years, when there is that level of problem, that serious a problem, and announce the really pitiful initiatives he announced in the Treasurer's budget?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would point out to the leader of the third party that when this government took office the total allocation for day care services was $105 million. This fiscal year it will be $185 million. That is an $80-million increase.

The second point I would make to the leader of the third party is that what was announced in this budget was clearly identified as the first stage and interim dollars. The statement I will be making to the House shortly will indicate the allocations for the next three years, which the member will see will be much more extensive than what has been announced so far.

PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier about the growth in the size of government bureaucracy since he took over two years ago.

Last week we asked if the government could explain the growth of its bureaucracy in two years by 4,700 civil servants, at an additional cost to the taxpayers of $200 million. This reflects only part of the overall situation.

Is the Premier aware that, on top of those increases in bureaucracy, in the last two years the staff complement at Ontario Hydro has grown by 1,239 people and that the staff complement at the Workers' Compensation Board has increased by 568 people, for a further additional cost to the taxpayers of $75 million for salaries alone?

At a time when other funds are being constrained, how can the Premier justify a total growth in his government's bureaucracy of 6,500 people and $275 million?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The increases the honourable member is referring to were referred to in the budget as far as the Ontario public service is concerned. He and his colleagues have asked us about that and I have responded on a number of occasions.

As far as the increase in complement at Ontario Hydro is concerned, he is aware it has an independent responsibility in that regard. We do not have the day-to-day control over Hydro that seemed to be the rule of thumb the honourable member's government took as part of its responsibility. As far as the Workers' Compensation Board is concerned, the honourable member will be aware that under the leadership of Dr. Elgie, in whom we all have a great deal of confidence, there has been an expansion of services not only for the good of the employees but also for that of the employers.

This has been extensive and well supported on all sides. It has improved the services available to these people in a way that was certainly not characteristic of the leadership during the previous administration.

Mr. Gillies: We on this side of the House believe that when there are insufficient funds to give disabled people all the pensions to which they are entitled and when in two years the provincial share of education funding has dropped, the people of Ontario are not being well served by the growth in the bureaucracy. They are not being well served at all.

Faced with these facts, how can the Premier or the Treasurer possibly justify an increase of 6,500 employees, an increase in salaries alone of $275 million, at a time when they say they cannot do what is required for the disabled and for our education system?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will be aware that even during the dying days of the administration of which he was a part, the government found itself faced with the requirement for a substantial increase under the Young Offenders Act, which is a piece of federal legislation.

He asks me how we justify a substantial increase in a variety of ministries. As far as labour is concerned and as far as occupational health and safety is concerned, there are 200 people involved in that, and so the list goes. The honourable member will know that there had been a substantial and serious shortfall in the provision of services. We feel we are making this up in an efficient and effective way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members want to waste time, we will just wait. Do they not want the member to ask a question?

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I am sure the minister will be aware that over 40 residents of McClure Crescent in his own riding are in the courts today fighting for justice as a result of living in homes that were allowed to be built on radioactive soil by a previous government. It is almost two years since the minister announced he was going to buy some of the homes. Those people are still fighting in the courts for damages and for a fair deal. Surely even this minister must realize that he has been unable to solve the problem.

Can he explain to us why these people are still having to go to court, why he is unable to get a solution and why he is still putting these people through the aggravation, worry and concern of living in homes that have been contaminated?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member would want to suggest that I have put these people through these hardships. As she knows, the previous government sat on this thing for a long time. The first announcement we made when we came into office was to relieve those people and give them a decision, allowing them to have an option in which to move. What we have done is bought those 42 homes.

I think the system is there to address their concerns through the courts. I am wondering if the honourable member is suggesting that I should circumvent the courts in some respect. They are presenting their case to the court system and I think justice will be done there.

Mrs. Grier: I do not think people going to court to appeal against a lack of action by a government and my calling on that government to intervene and arrive at a negotiated settlement can be described as subverting the courts.

The minister knows there are 80 homes affected. He has agreed to buy 40 of them. Even some of those 40 are still joined in the court action for a fair deal and for damages. It is still not too late to negotiate a settlement. The minister has not quarantined the homes -- as his leader suggested in 1983 he would do if he were to lead the government -- and he has not removed any of the soil.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Grier: Is the minister prepared to sit down and negotiate a fair deal and a fair solution with everyone who is affected and who wants to have that soil removed from the properties?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We have negotiated a fair deal on the 42 homes we bought there. We have bought those homes at market prices. Not only that, but if you can recall, Mr. Speaker -- and I am sure you can; I will refresh the honourable member's mind -- we paid for the legal fees, we paid for the removal costs and we paid for the appraisals that were done. There were three appraisals there.

They had no option in the past, no other choice, but to stay there and go to the court. This government gave them an option by buying at market price. We have given them that decision.

We still stand by, and we have been advised by the scientists, that the level of radioactivity there is safe, that it is at a level --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We thought they had no other option, so we assessed --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was no supplementary from the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis).

I can see that the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) would like to ask a question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Premier. In the speech from the throne, the Premier indicated: "A housing-first policy will be applied to all available provincial lands to create more housing for low- and moderate-income earners. Where lands are deemed inappropriate for such use, they will be sold and the proceeds applied to an assured housing development initiative."

In the face of the appalling lack of affordable housing that we now see, can the Premier tell this House today how many lands have been allocated, where, how many units will be developed upon them and when?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the honourable member the specific answer to the question she is asking, but I can respond in general terms.

As the member knows, this province owns a substantial amount of land, as does the federal government. We have been in very close communication with the federal government with respect to developing a policy to liberate those lands that we have, turning them into housing.

In some cases, of course, there may be an assessment that a particular piece of property is better sold off for commercial purposes and those moneys applied to housing and other areas. Swaps and other creative activities can be undertaken to try to use those lands to build the maximum amount of housing quickly. A complete inventory is being undertaken, and a development plan for each of those properties. We will be very happy to share that with the member at the appropriate time.

Ms.

Fish: In view of the fact that some $12 million in the increase to the Ministry of Housing will go to administrative costs, in view of the fact that there are some additional 200 employees in that ministry, 21,000 rent review applications in a backlog and no initiatives under way to provide support for low- and moderate-income housing for new construction, since the Ontario Land Corp. advises that no lands have been designated and, further, that there will not be a clear fund set up for the proceeds of any sale of lands to be put aside for housing initiatives, can the Premier tell this House how much money will in fact go into creating new housing rather than engorging an enlarged bureaucracy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think my honourable friend is quite correct in her assessment. As she knows, the housing allocation is up very substantially to meet a number of specific purposes. Obviously, we are looking at the question of the socially disadvantaged, the handicapped and others. There is a very creative program developed in that regard, as well as using a multipronged strategy liberating the current lands.

As I said to my honourable friend, no one had ever taken this creative approach before. It is being developed on all the various pieces of land and we are happy to share that with her at the appropriate time.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to be sure that the honourable members took note of the students from the W. Ross MacDonald School for the visually impaired who are just now leaving the Speaker's gallery. We are delighted to have them here today and we hope they will come back.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We would also like to welcome them and remind government members that there is an appropriate time for that type of recognition during members' statements, of which they used none today.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. McClellan: In view of the absence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), I have a question for the Premier arising out of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal in the Villanucci case. I have the decision here and I also have the permanent disability ratings

schedule of the Workers' Compensation Board, which workers in this province have referred to for the last 20 years as the meat chart and of which the tribunal said, "The board's `clinical rating' procedure estimates the impairment of earning capacity even though the board medical examiners do not consider the impact of the particular injury on the worker's actual earning capacity." The tribunal has upheld the validity of the board using the meat chart.

It is two years to the day this Thursday that the Premier signed his name to a piece of paper promising to reform the pension system of the Workers' Compensation Board. Does he intend to bring in an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act in this session of this parliament?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just had a quick review of the Villanucci case, which my honourable friend refers to, and I understand it created a new category to deal with the particular situation at hand. In response generally to the honourable member's question, as he knows, that matter is under review, I believe, by Mr. Weiler. We are looking at it and will be happy to report back to him at the appropriate time.

Mr. McClellan: That means no. Weiler is a warmed-over Tory appointee whose reports were rejected in 1981. The fact that he recycled them again in 1986 makes them no less unacceptable. In view of the fact that the Premier's promise to reform the meat chart is unfulfilled --

Mr. Polsinelli: Why did you guys block looking at Weiler in the committee?

Mr. McClellan: Because Weiler is not worth the powder to blow it to hell. That is why.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview, stay calm.

Mr. McClellan: In view of the tremendous disappointment that injured workers have experienced with the Villanucci case -- their hope for reform by route of appeal has been dashed -- I want to ask the Premier whether he would not now consider a very simple but very profound amendment to

section 45 of the Workers' Compensation Act, which deals with the establishment of permanent partial disability awards. Let him change the statute by giving the board the discretionary power to make supplementary awards based on loss of earning capacity. We could pass such an amendment, I assure the Premier, in less than two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand, and I could be wrong, that is what happened in the Villanucci case, where there was a new category created to make a --

Mr. Rae: No.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I am misreading it, then my honourable friend will tell me.

I will take under consideration any idea he has and discuss it with the minister. I am not in the position to give him that assurance today, but we are always looking for constructive and thoughtful suggestions.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Shymko: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. According to table C7 on page 50 of the budget, her ministry is the only one singled out from all the 27 ministries of this Liberal government to be on the hit list of the Treasurer to be slashed or guillotined to the tune of $21 million, representing a cut of eight per cent, when no other ministry has been cut by any.

In reality, if you add the 7.1 per cent increase in government spending, this represents a 15 per cent cut. How does the minister justify this or reconcile this with all the sanctimonious statements about concerns for culture, multiculturalism, sensitivity, etc.?

Hon. Ms. Munro: Putting aside sanctimony, of which the member has given me a very good example, I should tell him that over the past two years the ministry has been very successful in occasioning those kinds of increments which make a good deal of sense to the cultural and multicultural community. In terms of capital spending last year, we did rather well.

We continue to be a ministry that sits well in priorities with the government. I see the member shaking his head, so he must agree, and I thank him. We will continue to fight for the rights of the multicultural and cultural community.

Mr. Shymko: If cutting down the budget from $272 million last year to $251 million, if a 15 per cent cut represents doing well, I would like to ask the minister why she and her sidekick the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) do not resign immediately for this shameful cut in spending to a population representing 9.7 per cent of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I must say the member has not lost the acrimony with which he is so well festooned as of late. This minister is very sensitive to many of the things he is talking about. When he talks about significance in cutback in budget, he should be the first one to recognize the tremendous job this government did to support culture and multiculturalism over the past two years.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Prior to the throne speech, the press was full of stories -- which I can only assume came from discussions with the ministry -- with regard to a great education initiative that was going to be launched in this province. During the throne speech, we saw rather more vague references to teacher education, primary education renewal, drop-out rate attacks, literacy and so on.

Now, in the heat of the post-budget exchanges, if anything is clear it is at least that the ministry's budget is in steady state, if not less than that. May I ask the minister, whatever happened to the great education initiative in his visit with the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the opportunity to engage my friend from Hamilton West in this debate. To call the provincial government's contribution in the coming budget year steady-state financing is quite clearly to misrepresent reality.

I have said in this House, and I will repeat once again today, that our operating grants are appreciably above inflation. We have improved, as the Treasurer has said on a number of occasions, the cash flow situation to school boards. We have tripled the capital allocation for next year, as compared to three years ago.

Mr. Davis: How about last year?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Scarborough Centre intervenes. I think it is important for me to put on the record that the member for Scarborough Centre said proudly in our estimates a few months ago that he was not to be connected with or held responsible for any of the Conservative education policies prior to 1985.

I have to say that we have made significant strides on the financial side. Yes, more needs to be done and we hope to address more in the future. On the program side, in the area of the drop-out, on literacy, on teacher education, on access, on evaluation and a variety of other questions, we have done and intend to do a considerable amount.

Mr. Allen: I have to assume that if the minister thinks I am not dealing in reality, I think he is dealing in fantasy. If he takes the figures that are on page 64 and he works in an inflation factor, and the reduction is there of this year over last year, and if he adds in the capital increase proportion that the budget has allocated in capital directions, he will find it is very difficult to argue that this is very much more than a steady-state budget.

I would like, therefore, to ask the minister to narrow down the focus a little bit on the illiteracy question. He may know that the federal government has recently received a report which suggests that the functional illiteracy problem in Canada is worse than we have anticipated, but that that government is not going to do anything directly beyond what the provinces do in order to attack it.

It is in the minister's court. Will he tell me how in the steady-state budget he is going to find the resources to launch any significant attack upon functional illiteracy board by board, community by community in Ontario, and if he does find it, what programs he is going to cut to free up that money?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friends on the other side ask me to look at table C6 on page 64 of the Treasurer's budget, and I do so now. I look, for example, at the budget plan 1987-88 and I see a general legislative grant of $3,579,000,000, almost $400 million more than just two years before. I see that the cash flow improvement for 1986-87 is substantially better than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) ever afforded.

I look at the school capital grants and I see that $147 million is virtually double what the previous government was spending. I recognize that more needs to be done. I say to my friends from Sarnia to Hamilton that it is not just a matter of money, though this Treasurer and this government are dedicating appreciably more money. It is also a question of leadership and program, and we on this side are providing both in that connection as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the member for Nipissing wants to ask a question.

Mr. Harris: That answer smells just about as bad as red trilliums smell.

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Harris: In view of the absence of the Premier, who ran out of this Legislature in great haste -- I guess he got tired of referring questions or figuring out where to refer them -- I have a question for the government House leader.

The minister must be aware of the disturbing signs coming from Quebec which indicate that the Bourassa government wants to change the constitutional accord. To provide us with the openness that this House voted for last week, to help us to fully understand the implications of what may be the most significant national agreement short of the Constitution agreement itself, why will the government not permit a full range of the best constitutional minds to come before a committee of this House?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will know that Orders and Notices already indicates that there will be a debate in the House next Tuesday on the wording of the Meech Lake agreement. The Premier will have the opportunity to hear the views of the leading spokespersons for the parties in the Legislature before he is called to Ottawa to consult with the other first ministers and the Prime Minister.

I think he is also aware that, whatever the outcome of that first ministers' meeting, the Premier has given a proper undertaking, in my view, that the results will be fully debated in the House and that there will be at that time a motion of an appropriate nature and the members will have a chance not only to express their views but also to cast a vote in this connection. The government feels that this body, the membership in this assembly, represents the views of the community in an appropriate way and we are seeking those views on Tuesday.

Mr. Harris: I do not want to involve the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in this; I understand there may be some disagreement.

Tomorrow, as the House leader indicated, we will debate the constitutional agreement. Our party sees that as only the first step in what should be a full, open, public discussion on this important issue. In last Friday's Toronto Sun, the Premier is quoted as saying there is not enough time to hold full public hearings, even though our party suggested this over a month ago. There was time in Quebec. We indicated right off that they could be limited to one week if that would suit the Premier's timetable.

What is the hurry? Why is time so important that this agreement cannot face the full, open scrutiny which a majority of this Legislature has endorsed through the resolution last Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As I understand it, the Prime Minister of Canada, a good personal friend of the House leader opposite, has indicated he would like to consult with the first ministers on June 2, which is just a few days from now. The honourable member will know we have been undertaking extremely important debates in this House, which have really made it difficult to pursue other avenues of business, to the extent that there is some time constraint, but not in the ratification.

I understand there is a three-year term during which the House would be asked to express its view by way of ratification. There is every indication that a full debate of the House would take place, followed by a --

Mr. Grossman: When are the hearings?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not prepared to make a commitment in that regard.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

Given the fact that last week I asked the minister about where her new multicultural policy is, given the fact that she has been talking about it for a year and a half at the very least, and has been raising expectations all over the province in regard to this multicultural policy, and given the fact that her answer was that some time during the month of June she will make the announcement but the Treasurer does not have a cent in his budget to implement this policy, can the minister explain how her ministry is going to bring about that which she proposed when she said she wanted the policy of multiculturalism to be measured in terms of jobs, in terms of dollars and in terms of representations on boards?

Where are the dollars?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The honourable member would know that jobs can be created either from new money or from existing money. When the time comes for this government to announce a new multicultural policy, we will take into account not only the $4 million announced in the budget but also initiatives which have been entered into by various ministers.

Mr. Grande: Given the fact that, indeed, $21 million was cut from her budget from last year to this year -- sure, jobs can be created with old money, but the fact is that the old money is gone and she does not have the new money to implement the policy -- can the minister tell us how people in this province can take her and her government seriously when she talks about these new initiatives but when it comes down to the final outcome, to putting her money where her mouth is, the money is not there?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I can tell the member that the people of this province, contrary to what he thinks, have indeed trusted us to come out with the kind of signal that indicates this government is moving into new strategies as far as what multiculturalism is all about.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: While honourable members may laugh, I hope they are not laughing when the camera is pointing right at them. This government is dedicated to working with multicultural people to make sure not only that they have the kind of services they need but also that they get a government-wide policy.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The member's friend certainly seems to be very good on the violin. We should see whether we can give him a grant through the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

I can tell the member that this government is committed. He can take my word for it; he can take the government's word for it. He can also talk to the multicultural people in this province, and they will tell him they trust that we have received information and are acting on it.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. As reported in the Windsor Star of April 20, Leon and Lise Perrier of Maidstone township, travelling by motorcycle on county road 42 near the Windsor airport at 12:15 a.m., April 19, struck the back of a parked tractor-trailer. This couple was killed in the crash.

The tractor-trailer had turned into the driveway of a private marshalling yard and had then stopped, with the trailer still on the roadway. The driver had left the cab in order to open the gate to the yard. Of course, the closed gate prevented the driver from clearing the roadway.

As an example to the private sector, would the minister immediately give an order to have all Ministry of Transportation and Communications yards move their gates back from the roadway by a distance sufficient to allow all legal truck lengths space to pull into the entrance way and stop, while fully clearing the roadway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank the member for the question. I am already aware of some of the circumstances that surrounded that unfortunate tragedy in the Windsor area. I have already directed through the deputy that our regional directors move back, wherever possible within the limits of the road allowance, any of the MTC facilities -- fencing, barriers, gateways, etc. -- to prevent that kind of tragedy recurring.

Mr. McGuigan: Would the minister look into the possibility of passing regulations so that all accesses granted in the future have a condition applied to them that the gateways have to be moved back a sufficient distance? Would he also look into the possibility of passing regulations to make all yards in the public sector, as well as in MTC, retrofit the gates to those standards?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would be glad to give my colleague the undertaking that we will review the content of his request as it affects the private sector and private property. As I say, we are doing it within the ministry; we will certainly undertake to review it within the private sector.

APPORTIONMENT OF EDUCATION TAXES

Mr. Mitchell: I have a question of the Minister of Education, or should I suggest the minister for interference with the Ontario Municipal Board?

The minister is well aware -- and his own ministry has recognized the fact -- that the city of Nepean's education apportionment over the past number of years has exceeded its fair share by some $28 million. He is also aware that the township of Goulbourn is paying more than its fair share.

He is also aware that an appeal was made this year, as is the practice every year, at which Nepean and Goulbourn won, for one of their rare occasions, after which he immediately asked the OMB to re-evaluate the decision because of the effect it was going to have on those other municipalities that were not themselves paying their fair share.

Does he intend to constantly interfere with OMB decisions or is he going to change his policy?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I appreciate the question. What I am going to do is to listen with care and sensitivity to representations made, as with the squire of Manotick, who came to me with a delegation of municipal leaders from communities such as Rideau and Osgoode and other affected municipalities in the Carleton county area, who quite rightly asked that we consider options to alleviate the burden those municipalities would face. I met those people as I have happily and recently met the mayor of Nepean and the reeve of Goulbourn.

We have asked the Ontario Municipal Board to review the matter in the light of aspects it was not able to consider in the first instance. We did what we were quite entitled to do. That case is being heard today, and I expect this government is going to be able to resolve a situation that my friend the member for Carleton's government left unresolved for many years.

Mr. Mitchell: With respect to the minister's reply, he is well aware -- I am sure he interprets the Education Act the same way I do -- that the Education Act really is the guideline for the method with which he operates. Frankly, the minister is moving against its guidelines.

I also suggest to the minister that he is being blatantly unfair. What he is saying to me is that a Nepean resident on a boundary road between, say, Nepean and Kanata, where he is paying $900 in education taxes and a resident of Kanata is paying $600, should walk across the road and say: "Here is a gift. We are overpaying but that is all right. Here is a gift for coming and living in this area." When is the minister going to change this policy that his ministry says is wrong?

Hon. Mr. Conway: In the first instance, let me say it is interesting and almost a pleasure to hear from someone on the Tory side who actually sounds like he is running for re-election.

Second, I want to say to my friend the member for Carleton that he can be assured I will work very actively and vigorously for a solution to this difficulty. I want the Ontario Municipal Board to review the case with a view to a number of factors that were not fully understood in the first instance: the altered tax base and the implications for not just the Carleton jurisdiction but also many others.

I can assure my friend the member for Carleton that we on this side will work very vigorously towards a resolution of this matter and that we want to do so with fairness and equity to all parties in Carleton and elsewhere in the province.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Solicitor General, who will be aware that his own committee recommended in 1985 that police chases be allowed only where an offence is committed under the Criminal Code. I am wondering whether he is aware of the tragic deaths of two young people, James Vankregten, who died at age 20, and Tracey Cook, who died at age 17, both of whom died as a result of police chases where violations under the Highway Traffic Act were suspected. Is he aware of those deaths and does he feel that kind of tragic carnage on the highways as a result of police chases is justified in this province at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am very well aware of those situations and of every police chase that has occurred in this province since taking office. I can also inform the member that a final report from staff has been presented; I will receive it this afternoon and will consider it in making a final recommendation to cabinet in the very near future.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw two matters to the attention of the members. The first matter is that in the last 10 days there have been three instances when members have risen in their places to introduce visitors in the gallery. I hope all members are aware that there is nothing in the rules that allows a member to stand on a point of order or a point of personal privilege to introduce visitors in the gallery. I just hope that all members will stick to that decision by this House.

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker: The other matter: On Thursday last, the honourable House leader for the official opposition, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), raised a point of order regarding the recording in Hansard of words uttered in Polish on May 13, 1987, by the honourable member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko). I undertook to look into the matter and am now ready to rule.

Another matter which has a bearing upon this is that there are no funds available to the Legislature which would permit official translation in these cases. I therefore rule in confirming our present practice that when a member obtains the unanimous consent of the House to go beyond the limits of standing order 19(

a) with regard to language spoken in the assembly, this does not include verbatim reporting in that day's Hansard. The present practice of Hansard recording what language was then spoken is to be continued without the actual words being consigned.

Mr. Shymko: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is a ruling. The honourable member has the right, I suppose, to challenge the ruling. There is no debate.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could raise a point of order. Your ruling has brought into question a practice -- I thought the House leader for the government, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), quite properly introduced some visitors in your gallery today. I accept your ruling, but I would not want to see the type of introduction the Treasurer made today not be permissible in this Legislature.

There are other ways. Somebody could rise and ask for unanimous consent, which I doubt would ever be refused, in which case we could carry on merrily with all our introductions. Who among us is going to be the one to say, "No, the mayor from Sudbury cannot be recognized," or "No, these people cannot be recognized"?

In the past, I think that type of introduction has been very brief. It has not upset the Legislature and it has worked well for a number of years. Rather than try to raise it as a point of order or a point of privilege, I suggest to the Legislature that I see nothing wrong with a quick type of introduction when special people do come and visit us here in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know you will be glad to have at least an additional point of view. I want to apologize to the House for interrupting the course of question period with respect to the W. Ross MacDonald School for the visually impaired.

As a matter of fact, as the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) would know, that fine edifice is within the boundaries of his constituency. When I received a note that they were here, I replied that I was not able to introduce them until at least the end of question period, when I thought your wrath, Mr. Speaker, might be diminished somewhat. Unfortunately, even before I got the note, they were heading out and I thought it was so important for them and for us that they be recognized that I did what I did. I certainly want to apologize for that.

On the other hand, to introduce all school groups and all groups may be all right, but the members will recall a time when it really was a bit much when every Lions Club and every United Church Women's group, all of them worthy indeed, were introduced from the Legislature accompanied by rounds of enthusiastic applause. I am not so sure we want to do that either. Maybe we could give it some additional thought.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member's comments. Probably we could send a copy of this Hansard to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly when it further looks at the standing orders.

PETITION

THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS

Mr. Andrewes: I have a petition which reads: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the Honourable Murray Elston, Minister of Health, and the elected officials of the government of Ontario not move ahead to implement the recommendations in the Powell report on therapeutic abortions in Ontario, act justly and provide protection for unborn children in Ontario, take immediate steps to more carefully study abortion laws, propose alternatives to abortion, offer financial assistance to crisis pregnancy centres."

This petition is signed by 124 members of the Free Reformed Church in Vineland.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Grier moved first reading of Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this bill is to aid in the enforcement of the rules of the road as they apply to bicyclists. It adds the requirement that bicyclists provide identifying information to police officers who request it. The act provides that if they do not provide that information, they can be charged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved third reading of Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act.

Mr. Andrewes: Before we give this bill third reading, I just want to to make a few brief remarks. I think it is significant that in the hearings held on Bills 176 and 177, we had a very diverse group of individuals and organizations presenting to us. Although we did not always find ourselves in full agreement with one another, I think it is significant that there was a good deal of common ground found in those hearings among those who appeared.

A significant feature of this bill is the residents' bill of rights. It would have been our party's preference that the minister would have brought in an amendment which would have given a clear definition to the contractual arrangement that the Ministry of Health has with nursing home operators. Rather than that, the minister chose to leave us with only one option, and that was to place the onus on the residents to enforce that contract, thus creating the potential for an adversarial situation between the operators of nursing homes and the residents.

Left without this kind of clear statement, our party felt obligated to support the amendment on the bill of rights, as it did. That bill of rights now becomes part of Bill 176.

Finally, might I say in reference to this whole field of nursing homes and the operation of nursing homes that on page 12 of the budget the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) brought down last Wednesday, there is a very brief mention, about one and a half lines, that says the government will provide additional funding to improve the quality of care in nursing homes. It is a very vague line. It is one and a half lines in a 70-page document.

I only ask that the minister, at some appropriate time, make clear to us what his intent is. Is his intent simply to increase the global per diem now paid by the Ministry of Health to nursing home operators on behalf of residents or is his intent to prescribe a line-by-line budget increase?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Members, could you please carry on your conversations elsewhere. The noise level is getting to the point that we cannot hear the member debating.

Mr. Callahan: Yes, we cannot hear anything.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is not on topic anyway.

Mr. Andrewes: Perhaps if the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) cared to listen, he might learn something that he might take home to the nursing home residents in his riding. He was not listening very carefully.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would address the chair.

Mr. Andrewes: I only say through you, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record, that we now wait for clarity on that one-and-a-half line statement that was made in the Treasurer's budget last Wednesday and that 29,000 residents of nursing homes and their families are waiting as well.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, we in this party are very proud that this bill is coming forward today, along with its companion bill, Bill 177. For a number of years, members of this caucus, and in particular our leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), have been fighting for reform of the Nursing Homes Act. The major changes that these two bills represent are in fact major reforms, and we are very proud to have been part of that process.

I might point out to members of the Legislature that when these bills were introduced in the Legislature, they did not have a bill of rights for residents. They did not have a process for public hearings when licences for nursing homes were being changed or new ones being issued. They did not have full financial disclosure, they did not have service contracts, and there are a number of other areas that the original nursing home bills introduced by the Liberal government did not have.

We in this party -- my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and the chairman of the committee, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) -- worked very hard in presenting the amendments that I put forward on behalf of this caucus as Health critic. We got these amendments carried, and I believe it is one of the most significant accomplishments of minority government in the two years that this minority government has existed.

There are many other things that must be accomplished in this field. These amendments do not, by any stretch of the imagination, solve the problems of the residents in nursing homes in this province. The government has not adequately dealt with the whole area of enforcement.

I disagree with the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) who says that the bill of rights puts full responsibility for enforcement under this act upon the residents. That is not accurate at all. The fact of the matter is there are two mechanisms of enforcement. One is through the normal mechanism of the Nursing Homes Act in the violation of the act, which the minister and the ministry control, and the other is through the service contract that is signed by the nursing home and the resident and could result in civil litigation.

We can pass the best Nursing Homes Act in the entire world and if the government does not have the intestinal fortitude to enforce that act very strictly in the interest of the 32,000 or 31,000 residents of nursing homes, the act is meaningless. At this point, I am very sad to say that the current act has not been properly enforced.

Finally, we have to deal more adequately with the issue of profit versus nonprofit. Ontario's nursing home system is primarily a for-profit system. We remain convinced in this caucus that there will never be fundamental change in the motivation for providing care in Ontario's nursing home system as long as the for-profit system is dominant.

In fact, we believe very strongly that the for-profit system should be phased out and the nonprofit system should be brought in, where the only motivation is quality of care and quality of life. Then it does not matter; there are no profits in the picture at all. Today, our system is primarily based on profit and return on investment for shareholders.

We look at this as the first small step towards more major reforms for seniors requiring care, both within the institutional setting and, primarily, within our community.

Mr. McLean: I would like to talk briefly on the bill. I am very concerned about some of the contents, because I had occasion to sit on the committee for some time. I think the reforms for seniors are the most important part of it.

The other concern I have with the bill is with regard to the volunteers and the committees that are being formed, which I think are great. It is something that is probably long overdue. I hope that the people in those residences will be able to take advantage of them. When we talk about disclosure for patients, I think it is important that they be able to have that in effect.

When I look at the number of residents in nursing homes across this province, I think this legislation is a start in the right direction. When we talk in the bill with regard to profit versus nonprofit, I see nothing wrong with people who want to make a profit. I am sure the honourable minister himself agrees with that. But I am concerned about and I do hope to be enlightened about the volunteerism aspect.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to thank the two critics and the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) for their brief contributions. I think all of us recognize that more must be done and that, in fact, there are plans to do more. We will be working very hard with respect to the development of regulations to further enhance our ability to deal with difficulties.

Members and others have a commitment in the throne speech and the budget with respect to some of the difficulties raised by my colleagues the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes). We have made a very important first step towards dealing with this issue in terms of a quality-of-life issue. I want people to recognize these new amendments to the existing legislation, as a way in which we will be proceeding in the years to come to ensure that we are providing the quality of life our seniors deserve.

I think I can say on behalf of the people who have worked very hard on this, the people with whom we consulted prior to the introduction of the bill, the people who attended at committee and otherwise, that this truly was an example of the broadest type of consultation ending up with a product that came out of a very open and, at times, intense discussion of several of the issues.

More remains to be done. I commit myself to doing more for our seniors to ensure that areas of difficulty are dealt with, that we highlight the ability of seniors right across this province to live full and independent lives and, where appropriate and necessary, that we as a government respond to the needs of our seniors.

It is with that in mind that I am pleased to see third reading of Bill 176 and the amendments as a result of the passage of this bill being placed in law and assisting us to do more for the seniors in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

HEALTH FACILITIES SPECIAL ORDERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved third reading of Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Health Facilities Special Orders Act, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Elston: By way of explanation, this bill contains amendments to the Health Facilities Special Orders Act which are parallel to and required by the amendments just passed under Bill 176. I appreciate the passage of these to complement that initiative.

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In keeping with your ruling earlier today, I will not introduce my daughter who is in the gallery this afternoon.

I am pleased, on behalf of the New Democrats, to be responding to the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). The members will not be surprised, I am sure, to know that we are disappointed in this budget. We knew, during almost the entire past year, that when it came time for him to draft his budget, money was not going to be a problem for the Treasurer, but we knew his priorities would be a problem.

The question in drafting this budget was one of priorities, not of money. That is a departure from the struggles Treasurers have had in this province for the last number of years. This government decided there were to be no priorities in this budget, save one. That one priority in the budget is that there would be no direct tax increases.

At first blush, that certainly sounds great, but we will see, as time goes on, just how well that washes in the province as it sinks in among the population just what the Treasurer did not do, given the funds he had at his disposal. It is never difficult, surely, to prepare a budget when money is not a question. It is not difficult to maintain the status quo, if you have a few bucks to do so.

This budget does nothing for the thousands of young people who have completed their education and are looking for a job. This budget does nothing for the homeless, given the tight rental market and given the skyrocketing home prices, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto. This budget does nothing for working families seeking affordable day care in the province. For northern Ontario residents, looking for a diversified and more secure economy, this budget does so little as to be laughable.

We have already heard from the two opposition parties just how shallow the government's commitment to education is. One can look long and hard for any kind of commitment in this budget to reduce class size or to meet even a fair proportion of the demands of school boards for capital expenditures, and it is not there.

There is a reason why there was no action on these issues. We think it is because the Treasurer simply could not bring himself to make any hard decisions or any tradeoffs when it came to disposing of the new revenues he had. We should be aware of just how much he had in new revenues; not just new revenues, unanticipated revenues. He planned his budget and he had $1.2 billion more than he thought he was going to have.

Surely to goodness that allows him to make some pretty nice choices as to what he can do with that money. As I will outline in more detail a little later on, this party indicated to the Treasurer that we would even support some new taxes if they were to help remove some of the inequities in the present tax system. I will detail that precisely.

Mr. Haggerty: In what areas?

Mr. Laughren: I will give that precisely to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). I will not speak in generalities; I will give him some details.

Despite all the hoopla surrounding the fact that there are no tax increases, there is really not much here in this. When it comes to education, we have already explained to the Treasurer, and I think he is feeling somewhat embarrassed by the fact, that there is less of a commitment to education in this budget than there was when the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Education.

When it comes to the development of northern Ontario, I am definitely going to spend a little time on that. I think that is an issue that the government is going to find very difficult to explain all across northern Ontario: no action on gas prices, no minimum corporation tax, no capital gains tax, no land speculation tax and very little for low income tax earners in the province.

I promised that I would be specific when it came to taxation, and I know the member for Erie is going to stay and listen to my remarks in order to get the full impact of just precisely how I would change the tax system in Ontario. Surely, one of the key ways to measure fairness in a system like ours is the kind of tax system we have. This budget makes virtually no attempt to make our tax system more equitable.

Since this government came to power, personal income tax revenue has increased from $7.25 billion to $9.96 billion for this year. That is an increase of $2.7 billion in provincial revenues strictly on personal income tax revenues. As a percentage of total revenue raised, personal income tax revenue has increased from 26 per cent to 29 per cent in the same period, and for the fiscal year just ended, the Treasurer has a windfall of $670 million from personal income tax revenue alone.

What do low-income taxpayers get from all this? They get a $10-million reduction in their Ontario income tax because the Treasurer has raised the zero tax threshold to $2,483. This is still $207 below what the 1981 zero tax threshold level would have been, had it simply been adjusted to increases in the cost of living. To put that in perspective, the Treasurer has announced that he is removing some of the low-income taxpayers from the burden of taxes. Yet if we had a cost-of-living indexing which did that automatically, taxpayers would be better off today than they are now under the Treasurer's measures.

The Treasurer's own staff admitted in the lockup that even after the measures of this budget, for a family of four with one payer of income tax in that family earning $15,500 a year, that taxpayer would still be paying about $450 of provincial income tax. We think that is simply outrageous. That family is about $7,000 below the Statscan poverty level. How the Treasurer can sit there and feel that he has made any kind of contribution to low-income taxpayers in the province while he takes that kind of action is beyond our comprehension.

Thus far, he proposed that to eliminate all provincial income tax for those at or below the poverty line would cost the Treasury about $110 million this year. Just to put that $110 million in perspective, that is about eight per cent of the new money that the Treasurer had come into the consolidated revenue fund this year, so we are suggesting that it would not in any way threaten the fiscal integrity of the province. We are saying, "Take eight per cent of that new money and ease the burden on the low-income taxpayers in the province."

The Treasurer also announced a modest increase in the property tax credit of the 1987 tax year, which he says will result in an increase of benefits of $85 million. Yet the real value of these credits has fallen by 65 per cent since their introduction. When the Liberals came to power two years ago the value of those tax credits was $292 million. For this coming year, the value of the tax credits is $280 million.

Once again, put in perspective, not only has the value of the tax credits, which are for low-income people, dropped by $12 million in absolute numbers, but if you build in the inflation factor, they have fallen by $40 million. The Treasurer is not giving anything to low-income people. As a matter of fact, since this government came to power it has made the situation worse for low-income-tax people. For the Treasurer to stand up and trumpet the virtue of his tax credits is simply not honest.

The Treasurer also announced a modest increase in Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance, a move that will cost a grand total of $20 million. That is a long way from the promise of that government to eliminate OHIP premiums. There is no mention whatsoever of that in the budget. We on this side have proposed that we eliminate OHIP premiums over a period of five years and start with low-income taxpayers who currently still have to pay OHIP premiums.

There are obviously a number of things the Treasurer could have done to make our tax system more equitable. I promised the member for Erie, who I notice is still in the assembly, that I would be very specific about what we would do because we do not believe it is appropriate simply to criticize. We feel it is appropriate to say what we would do in place of what the Treasurer has done.

We believe it is time provincial income taxes were eliminated for those living below the poverty level.

Mr. Polsinelli: What is the poverty level?

Mr. Laughren: I am using the poverty level as established by Statscan. For a family of four in Ontario, it is around $21,000, give or take; almost $22,000 a year. The Treasurer knows -- he has our material -- exactly what that will cost the Treasury and he knows the province can afford it as well.

As a first step towards the complete elimination of OHIP premiums, we also recommended that these premiums be eliminated for the working poor. It is entirely unfair that the most basic of services in our society, that of health care, is financed by a regressive tax, and it really is a tax although I notice the Treasurer was very careful in his document not to list it as one of the taxes in the province because the Conservatives got into trouble with that one year when they listed it as a tax. It is very cute the way he did that.

The Treasurer, by the way, is on the record as expressing unhappiness with the whole question of a capital gains tax not being in place. We tried to say to him, "We want to assist you in resolving your unhappiness," and suggested that there be a reintroduction of the succession duties tax in the absence of a capital gains tax. I recall very well when the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) eliminated succession duties in the province. Talk about protecting not only high incomes but also established wealth in the province. I am surprised the Treasurer would go along with a blatantly Tory measure in the province; no succession duties whatsoever.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We want to be able to take it with us.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, he does. By the way, I should tell the Treasurer that we would exempt the family farm, so perhaps he should not be as nervous as he is about his succession duties.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not have one.

Mr. Laughren: Maybe Mrs. Nixon could relax then.

It is also not appropriate that first-time home buyers in this province have been effectively denied the opportunity of buying a home any more. If we look at Metropolitan Toronto, the average price of a new home now is approximately $200,000. Real estate sources estimate that speculators account for between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of sales in the resale home market. What we are saying is that it is time for a real estate speculation tax to make it unattractive for speculators to flip homes. We hear stories of speculators buying homes and then selling them before the deal is even closed, simply to make some quick bucks.

Another area we suggested to the Treasurer is the whole question of tobacco taxes. I know the Treasurer is somewhat sensitive about tobacco taxes, given the area he represents. We know as well that smoking is responsible for over 12,000 deaths in Ontario every year. We believe it is not fair that as the damaging effects of smoking on both smokers and nonsmokers continue to mount, the Ontario government continues to encourage smoking by levying the lowest tobacco taxes in all of Canada. Ontario has the lowest tobacco taxes of any province in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are higher than the northern states. We are much higher than New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan. We are very high.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is the free trader talking.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: It is good to get the Treasurer's opinion of free trade on the record for the first time. We are talking about Canadian tobacco taxes. In Ontario, the tax per cigarette is just under three cents. What we have suggested to the Treasurer is that this tax be raised to about four cents which is a good average for all of Canada. All of that money, every penny of that money --

Mr. G. I. Miller: Let us make it free choice. Let the individual make the free choice of what he wants to do. You are putting the farmers out of business.

Mr. Laughren: I am sorry the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) is getting so upset. Before he gets too upset, let me assure him that every single penny of new money to be raised by cigarette taxes should go to public health programs, antismoking clinics and aiding tobacco farmers to shift from tobacco to other crops; every single penny. We are not talking about a tax grab here. We are talking about a responsible, public health measure.

We know the tax system in this province is not fair. It is as plain and simple as that. We shall continue to fight for a fair tax system. The province is sitting back saying: "We are waiting for the federal government. It is going to bring in some comprehensive tax reform." Anything the federal Tories bring in in the name of tax reform is not going to satisfy working people in Ontario. If tax reform is important, it is important today. There is no reason we should have to wait for it.

Mr. Warner: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: David, what do you know about working people?

Mr. Laughren: As much as the Treasurer.

As we talk about reform, it is appropriate that I move into an area where a great deal of reform is needed, namely child care programs. In response to our leader, we heard the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) say today that for the next couple of years there would be 5,000 new child care spaces in Ontario. I heard him say that this very afternoon, at a time when the lowest estimate I have ever seen is that we need about 85,000 new spaces, and they are as high as 100,000 new spaces. The minister is talking about 5,000 new spaces in the next two years. That is not a commitment to major child care reform in the province.

Working families can no longer cope with Ontario's inadequate and outdated child care system. Despite repeated promises from this government and the one before it to treat child care as a basic public service, virtually nothing has happened. Fees average $4,500 to $5,000 a year. That is more than most families can afford. Because centres are still totally dependent on parent fees for funding, child care workers are still notoriously underpaid, averaging about $14,000 a year. The situation is intolerable.

A major commitment of funds for the development and operation of child care services is needed to confront the crisis head on. The government's promise to fund child care services has already been diluted by its stated intention to give money to commercial centres. This foolhardy plan will divert scarce funds away from the nonprofit sector, which provides far superior care, into the pockets of private operators. I feel the same way about private child care as I do about the private nursing home business.

The difference between private day care and public-funded, nonprofit day care is the same in my mind as with nursing homes. The difference between quality care and care is the element of profit and shareholders' money. We do not need that in those two areas, child care and nursing homes.

We have stated categorically where we think the money should go. We think it should go for capital funding, development assistance and operational funding. There should be conditional grants to allow the for-profit operations to shift to nonprofit. There should be a subsidy for new spaces. In our game plan, we would allocate $179 million to day care. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but I want to tell the Treasurer that it reflects this party's commitment to a significant child care program in the province.

Our society has changed profoundly in the last few years. There was a day when two working spouses meant a self-indulgent lifestyle. Today, it means economic survival for working people. To those who resent tax dollars going to support a second income, imagine trying to buy a house in Toronto at the $200,000 level. Child care is no longer an indulgence for trendy couples. It is a necessity for families that want to realize the dream of home ownership.

Speaking of home ownership, the government's commitment to housing is increasingly being shown to be in a shambles. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) simply does not have a grasp of his ministry and the Treasurer has not made any major commitment to housing in the province.

Housing is a major concern for people and despite its economic and social significance, this government continues to ignore it. Ontario's housing situation is the worst since the Second World War. Vacancy rates in apartments are abysmally low. Across Ontario, they average about 0.5 per cent; in Toronto, they are 0.1 per cent. That is one vacancy in every thousand apartments and they are not vacant for very long. We have a very serious housing crisis in Ontario.

The option of home ownership has been eliminated for many citizens in Ontario because of the cost of a home. We know that prices have skyrocketed about 25 per cent in just the last year alone. Despite the fact that the government's financial situation is the strongest in many years, the province has failed to deal with the dual problem of affordability and supply. The construction of housing is a very positive economic activity in Ontario. It is labour intensive, which results in a high number of jobs being created for the amount of government spending. It also uses materials, such as lumber, that are found within the province, thus providing an enormous economic spinoff.

The only successful, although limited in scale, housing program the Ontario government has undertaken since assuming office is the three-year joint federal-provincial project that funds the construction of 20,000 nonprofit and co-operative housing units. The limitation of this program is illustrated by the fact that the rental housing units built in 1986 and 1987 are only about half of the 24,000 units needed per year. The province should at least double its commitment to the nonprofit housing sector to 13,500 units a year.

As the current program is costing the province $25 million a year out of the total of $47.5 million with the federal government, an additional $25 million should not produce too great a strain on the government's finances.

As well, the construction of an additional 20,000 rental units over three years would result in the creation of thousands of additional jobs. The government's other housing supply programs, Renterprise and convert-to-rent, have once again shown the folly of throwing money at developers to build large-scale rental housing. The apartments are generally unaffordable to modest-income families. They constitute a substantial drain on the public purse -- $150 million over the life of the Renterprise program -- that could be better spent on affordable nonprofit and co-operative housing.

In the case of Renterprise, up to half of the 5,000 units will simply not end up as rentals, but will instead end up as condominiums.

Finally, the question of home ownership must be examined when looking at the failures of the government's housing policy. In the two years since the government has assumed office, the cost of buying a house has moved upwards by leaps and bounds. The average price of a home in Toronto has gone from $118,000 less than a year ago to $200,000 in April 1987. The much-sought-after dream of home ownership is becoming increasingly remote for moderate-income families and this Liberal government has failed to slow down the price hikes by taking our advice and bringing in some kind of housing or resale speculation tax that would discourage that kind of flipping.

The government should also take direct action to ensure that affordable homes are being built in Ontario. It should undertake some kind of new-home-ownership-made-easy assistance program. This program would have the government use some of its extensive land holdings. The government mentions that every now and again. It hints at it but there are no details on it. There are such holdings in Pickering and we could have modest homes constructed on those parcels of land.

These homes could be sold to families of modest income, say below $40,000, at the cost of constructing them while the ownership of the land would remain with the province. The homes must be owner-occupied. When the home owners decide to move, they could sell their homes back to the province. These home owners would in turn receive the equity they built up in the house plus inflation.

Not only would such a plan provide direct housing for thousands of people in the province, but it would also ease the pressure on the heated-up housing market in Ontario, bringing at least partial relief to all people who are hunting for a home. Surely it is time for the government to take bold and imaginative action to deal with the long-standing housing needs of ordinary citizens of the province. It is with great disappointment that we find the government's economic plan, this budget, provides only a minor effort to deal with important housing needs.

I was intrigued a few minutes ago when the Treasurer made some mention, in a rather peripheral way I admit, of the United States, because I would like to spend a couple of moments on the whole question of free trade and this party's position vis-à-vis the government's position and the official opposition's position.

We have seen this budget and we have seen the one little paragraph in the budget that makes mention of free trade, but that is all it does. We know the Treasurer is very proud of the revenues that have flowed into his Treasury but we feel there are some disquieting signs and I suggest the Treasurer needs to contemplate them. The free trade talks are hanging over our heads and while I suspect the Treasurer thinks they are hanging over our heads like a cloud and that the cloud has a silver lining, I am not too sure it has for Ontario.

The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, DRIE, states that there could be job losses in a whole range of industries in this province, including automobiles, tires, major appliances, toiletry preparations, food processing, brewing, distilling, flour milling, poultry, converted paper products, finished wood products, carton, box and corrugated containers, electrical products, urban buses, construction machinery and primary glass. Ontario, Canada's manufacturing heartland, could indeed face some difficult times ahead. That same DRIE report indicated that there are 280,000 manufacturing jobs at risk under a free trade agreement.

New Democrats have been firm and consistent on the issue of free trade. We do not believe it is in the best interests of Ontario and Canada. We do not believe we live in a world of equals. If we did, I for one would be willing to compete with our trading partners because we then would indeed be on a level playing field. Free trade cannot level that playing field the federal government is so anxious to talk about because the two participants in this case, Canada and the United States, are not equal. That is exactly why we are so concerned about rushing headlong into a free trade agreement.

We would very much like to have some commitment from the Treasurer or the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as to where they think they are going with it.

We are not opposed to free trade as some kind of knee-jerk, anti-American response. Rather, we think it is not in our best interest, plain and simple. I think the Macdonald commission did us all a service when it said something very startling. Macdonald said that we have a choice in this country. Either we can have a planned economy or we must have free trade. I agree with him. Mr. Macdonald and the commission understood very well that you can no longer live in this world without having some kind of game plan and I believe that.

We

part company with Mr. Macdonald, the federal Tories and the provincial Tories. God only knows whether we do with the Liberals in Ontario; I do not know where they stand but we as well believe there needs to be a game plan. Free trade is a game plan -- that we concede -- but so is a properly planned economy. I would opt every time for a properly planned economy because I do not believe that free trade will give us the answers that some people seem to think it will.

As a matter of fact, it is Mr. Macdonald -- the Thumper, as he is known -- who is out there now thumping for free trade along with Peter Lougheed and trying to sell it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And Darcy McKeough.

Mr. Laughren: I am not surprised at that allegiance of McKeough, Macdonald and Lougheed. What a triumvirate.

We know the federal government has clearly opted for the free trade option. Provincial Tories have opted for the free trade option. I understand that, but what I do not understand is where the provincial Liberals stand on it. That is incomprehensible.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is your problem.

Mr. Laughren: It is not my problem; it is all of Ontario's problem. That the Treasurer would bring in a major budget statement in a year when the free trade issue may very well be resolved and have one small paragraph in it, given the warnings that have been placed before us by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and not say anything else about it, is reprehensible.

We believe we cannot walk away from the option that Mr. Macdonald puts before us, a planned economy or free trade. We have made our decision, and we think it is time the Liberal government did as well. They simply do not have a policy.

Those of us who live in northern Ontario have seen how free trade works. We have seen it in the resource sector, and we have seen what that means. It means that you exploit the hell out of the resource and do not tamper with it. Do not dare tamper with it, because the first thing you know, your trading partner, who thinks he is in a free trade arrangement with you, will complain that it is no longer free trade.

What better example do we need than the softwood lumber issue, where we had free trade? There was free trade in softwood lumber, but because our stumpage fees were too low, the Americans said: "That is not acceptable. You cannot have that level of stumpage fees." It did not matter to the Americans that the government wanted those stumpage fees at that level for either reforestation or regional development purposes. That did not mean a thing. It was just that the stumpage fees were too low to satisfy what our major trading partner felt was a fair agreement.

It did not matter. We now have no control over stumpage fees in the province. It does not matter that we want those fees set at that level for regional development purposes. I would suggest to the Treasurer that from this point on, every time this province wants to engage in a major regional development program, such as for northern Ontario or for eastern Ontario, it is going to run into flak because of the precedent that has been set.

We clearly lost that dispute on the softwood lumber issue. The government knew that it was done. They knew we had lost. They agreed to it, because they knew they could not sustain the argument of those kinds of stumpage fees under a free trade arrangement.

We disagree with free trade for Ontario because there are implications for both jobs and sovereignty in any free trade arrangement and we would lose on both counts. We would pay a price in terms of our ability to chart our own economic future and, in particular, in our ability to implement regional development policies. As someone who lives and works in northern Ontario, that bothers me a great deal.

We in this party are more optimistic about our ability to build our economy the way Canadians want it rather than simply acquiescing to market forces dominated by another sovereign state. We believe we can negotiate sectoral agreements and work with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, while at the same time targeting particular sectors which we would build and, if necessary, protect.

New Democrats believe in and will fight for the growth of both real wealth and jobs, through a policy designed to replace selective imports. We know we must be careful. We also know that our history of reliance on raw resources must change. We know that for every job we create through resource extraction, we export four jobs to the nation that receives and processes that resource.

We have the domestic market necessary to build industries that will go a long way towards replacing some of the imports that currently flood our market. We do not need to import such a preponderance of our machinery, appliances, electronics and computer equipment, to name just a few sectors.

A few examples will make the point. I selected these somewhat arbitrarily, but they are sectors where there is a substantial domestic market, where there is potential for growth and where there is very high import penetration.

Under hardware, tools and cutlery, we have a $650-million import bill. If we replaced even 25 per cent of that, we would create 1,600 jobs in Ontario. Machinery and equipment: 60 per cent of the market is represented by imports; 25 per cent of that market would mean 12,000 jobs in Ontario.

In electrical and electronic products, the biggest of which, by the way, are computers and computer parts, we have a deficit of over $2 billion. Small electronic appliances: 56 per cent of the market is represented by imports; 25 per cent of that would mean over 1,200 jobs.

Household radios and televisions: 77 per cent of the market is imports. Office and store machinery: a deficit of over $3 billion; 5,800 jobs if we were to replace a quarter of those imports. Finally, instruments and related products: a deficit of $2 billion; we could create over 10,000 jobs if we replaced 25 per cent of those imports.

What we have done is select some sectors, a very arbitrary number of sectors, and said: "We have large imports in these sectors. We have a large domestic market. It is worth attempting to build up the Canadian market in Ontario to replace at least some of those imports." We are not suggesting all of them -- we know that is not realistic -- but we are saying that there is a large domestic market, that there are large imports and that there is potential for growth. They are high-growth industries. We believe it is not appropriate for a government to ignore that.

The alternative option to this is free trade. That is exactly what Mr. Macdonald meant when he said, "We must opt for a planned economy or free trade." We are saying this is the kind of planned economy where you select sectors and decide that you are going to build those sectors in order to create jobs and have more control over the future of your own economy. We feel very strongly about that and think the government is simply taking the path of least resistance by going the free trade route.

Finally, on that matter I would ask the Treasurer to keep in mind the whole question of regional development, because I do not know how we are ever going to engage in serious regional development in the province under a free trade arrangement. If the softwood lumber dispute means anything, that should be all the example the Treasurer needs.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about the environment. I think the Treasurer has ignored the enormous potential of the environment in the whole area of the economy, the relationship between the economy and the environment. I feel very strongly that the mugs have had their day in counterpoising the environment to jobs. It is time that day was ended; it is time that dispute was put to rest.

We often hear, "You cannot have jobs and a clean environment." We believe the opposite is true. Environmental regulation not only reduces pollution; it also creates jobs. Pollution control has the potential to be a major sales-generating, profit-making, job-creating industry. However, in Ontario, the industry has not developed as successfully as it should have because of lack of government direction.

For example, Ontario Hydro was on the verge of developing viable scrubbers for its coal-fired generating stations to reduce acid gas emissions in the late 1970s, but the research was curtailed when it became evident that Hydro would not be forced to install pollution abatement equipment, and that is too bad.

There are no regulated air standards or water standards, so large companies have been able to avoid major expenditures on pollution abatement equipment. Disposing of municipal and industrial waste in the province's 3,400 landfill sites has been the cheapest and easiest solution for years. The lack of stringent regulations on landfill sites has resulted in inadequate disposal of hazardous wastes and a legacy of leaking landfill sites.

The government claims to care about the environment, yet its reluctance to properly fund environmental initiatives tells another story. When inflation is taken into account, the Liberals actually spent less on the environment than the previous government spent in 1981-82 at the peak of its environmental spending.

Isn't it strange, Mr. Speaker: two areas where the Liberals have been making so much noise, so much hype; education and the environment, and in both cases, they spent less than their predecessors did. That says something about substance.

The funding of the Ministry of the Environment must be increased and the ministry must tighten up environmental regulations. Otherwise, the quality of our environment can deteriorate even further and jobs can actually disappear as a result of this neglect. Jobs in tourism, commercial and sports fishing, forestry and agriculture are all v