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

May 4, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L057 - Wed 4 May 1988 / Mer 4 mai 1988

JOHN WEIR FOOTE

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BRUCE CURTIS

WATER POLLUTION

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EASTERN ONTARIO FARMERS

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS MONTH

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FOREST FIRE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FOREST FIRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

EDUCATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NONPROFIT HOUSING

SKILLS TRAINING

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

TOURISM INDUSTRY

EXTENDED CARE

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

MINERAL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES

SCHOOL FUNDING

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

JOHN WEIR FOOTE

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to Lieutenant-Colonel John Foote. Do I have it?

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Pollock: Colonel John Foote passed away at his home in Cobourg on Monday. He was the only chaplain in the Canadian Army ever to win the Victoria Cross. He won that medal for his efforts at the Dieppe raid.

During the Dieppe raid, Colonel Foote carried the wounded back to the landing-craft, and then when the landing-craft left, he remained behind actually to care for the wounded and minister to the dying. He also was a prisoner of war for the rest of the period of the war and helped to keep morale high in the prisoner-of-war camps.

He was born in Madoc township, received his education there and was eventually ordained as a Presbyterian minister. After the war he came back to Canada and served at many different jobs. One of them was as a member of this Legislature from 1948 to 1957. He served as Minister of Reform Institutions from 1950 to 1957.

Also, he was a very modest man. I can recall listening to an address by Colonel John Foote in Norwood, where he had lived for several years. He was a very modest man and he never took credit for actually winning the Victoria Cross, In fact, he actually gave that Victoria Cross to his regiment, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, because he felt the valour of that day had been shared by all.

I ask all members of this assembly to join with me in expressing our sincere condolences to Colonel Foote’s wife, Edith Sheridan, and their family.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: May I, on behalf of the government, join the honourable member in expressing our concern for Colonel Foote’s family and also our appreciation for his service to the nation and to the people through this Legislature.

I can recall meeting him when I visited the Legislature during the 1950s. My father was a member before me, in opposition in those days. As a matter of fact, my father considered Colonel Foote a very good friend indeed and always had the highest regard for his interventions here in the House and his work as a cabinet minister in, as it was in those days, the Ministry of Reform Institutions.

I just happened to be chatting with the chief government whip, who is somewhat younger than I, and he said he recalls the story of Colonel Foote, VC, having a prominent

part in his grade 6 reader, a story which was a great example to all young people.

There is no doubt that Colonel Foote’s life, his career and his record of service are an outstanding example to all citizens, but particularly those of us who have the honour to serve as members of this House.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words.

Our hearts go out to Colonel Foote’s family. It is, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has well said, a life that will serve as an example to a great many young people. It is perhaps difficult for a generation raised in 1988 to recall the real personal heroism and sacrifice that was involved on the part of those who took

part in the Second World War and particularly those who took

part in the raid on Dieppe.

I want to join all those in the House who share in the loss of Colonel Foote. We very much want to send to his family our very best wishes and our thoughts for them. Let us also perhaps say, even in this time of their great loss, that while this is a time for mourning, it is also a time for celebration, for his truly was a remarkable and courageous life.

Mr. Speaker: On your behalf, when Hansard is printed, I will as usual send a copy of your words of sympathy to the Foote family.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BRUCE CURTIS

Mrs. Grier: Many Canadians this week are tying on yellow ribbons to celebrate the return to Canada of Bruce Curtis.

Bruce is a young man from Nova Scotia who five years ago was sentenced to 20 years in a New Jersey prison for a killing many people believe was an unfortunate accident. His return to serve the remainder of his term in Canada is a tribute to the determination and loyalty of his family and hundreds of other people, many of them from Ontario. They stood vigil outside embassies, encouraged Bruce by keeping in contact with him and wrote thousands of letters to the authorities in New Jersey.

I am pleased to be able to make that small contribution. Alexa McDonough, the leader of our party in Nova Scotia, did much more. Politicians of all parties helped in obtaining and implementing an agreement with the United States that allowed his transfer to Canada.

In New Jersey, Bruce was subject to an incredible campaign of petty tyranny. He was refused permission to study by correspondence from Canada. They said he could not mail essays outside the United States. Letters were not delivered to him. He was refused fresh air and exercise for months at a time.

Throughout his ordeal, this young man has shown a remarkable strength of spirit. His transfer represents a triumph for those who refuse to accept something that they consider to be an injustice. It serves as a lesson to all of us that individuals can make a difference.

Bruce, in prison, taught literacy to fellow inmates and wrote most sensitive and moving poetry about his love of this country. Our congratulations go out to the Curtis family, and good luck to him.

WATER POLLUTION

Mrs. Marland: I would like to express my concern about the way the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has reacted to the pollution of the Metro Toronto waterfront by the Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant. He seems to be taking the whole thing very lightly and is depending on his almighty program, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, to solve everything. The minister even thinks Metro will have some of its beaches open this summer ‘more often than in the past.”

How can the minister even believe this himself when his own ministry’s report is telling us that the Toronto sewage treatment plants are spewing DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, phosphorus, nitrogen, iron, copper and the wood preservative pentachlorophenol into the lake at levels far above ministry guidelines?

The Metro works commissioner will not guarantee that Metro’s beaches will ever be clean, despite the money that is being spent on water pollution controls and improvement to the sewage treatment plant.

This alarming evidence makes it essential for the Minister of the Environment to implement the terms of a resolution brought to this House by this party almost one year ago. Phil Gillies’s resolution to expand the MISA program to require pretreatment of waste dumped into municipal sewers by more than 11,000 small industries was passed unanimously by all parties.

The Minister of the Environment has had plenty of time to study this. It is time he got on with the job. The minister must live up to his promises for a change and, to use his own words, “clean up Ontario’s waterways by stopping water pollution at its source.”

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH

Mr. Lipsett: I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge the efforts of one of the many service clubs in my riding, namely, the Quota Club of Owen Sound and the proclamation by the local municipality that the month of May be recognized as Better Hearing and Speech Month in Grey.

The Quota Club brings to our attention that hearing loss, speech impairment and related language deficiencies are the number one handicap in Grey county, affecting over 5,000 persons. This service club works year-round with the hard of hearing. Its services to the community include furnishing the ear, nose and throat operating room of the new Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre, supplying hearing aids and helping to pay for the teletypewriter telephone services.

During Better Hearing and Speech Month, the club’s activities will include a “hearing help” display at the Grey County Mall. Free hearing tests will be offered to the public at their display.

I applaud the efforts of all of those who are providing assistance in this area and also making the general public aware of this communication handicap through Better Hearing and Speech Month.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I would like to continue with another national Mental Health Week observance.

It is well known that the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals are falling down around the ears of the patients who inhabit them and the staff who work in them. The hospitals are understaffed. The hospitals’ staff are having extreme difficulty paying attention, as are the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

In the absence of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), who I hope will read Hansard on this, I should say there has been an acrimonious three-year dispute between the medical staff at our provincial psychiatric hospitals and the government, which has failed to implement the recommendations of the Burkett conciliation board. In fact, they are so unhappy with the government’s lack of response in the area of salaries and working conditions that they have voted to strike or resign, which of course will leave our psychiatric system in a mess that will be even worse than it currently is.

EASTERN ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to inform all members, and particularly the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), that this government continues to ignore eastern Ontario totally. There was nothing in the budget for eastern Ontario because the Treasurer thinks the economy of eastern Ontario has improved. There was nothing in the budget for farmers because the Treasurer, again, thinks the farm economy is in great shape. The Treasurer’ s analysis will come as a surprise to the farm and nonfarm rural poor in eastern Ontario.

Even the Liberal Party’s mouthpiece, the Toronto Star, in a story last Sunday, acknowledged the existence of the rural poor, who live with no running water and often on dirt floors. This government clearly feels that as long as the existence of these people is kept from the urban media, their plight can be safely ignored.

What is even more shocking is that since June 1986, the province has had a report suggesting measures to improve the lives of many of these people. The recommendations are in the report of the Agricultural Council of Ontario dated June 18. 1986 -- I have a copy of it right here -- dealing with the incomes of farmers and their families in Ontario. It calls specifically for the province to encourage regional and rural development, in particular through small and medium-sized businesses.

This budget not only further decreases the mobility of the rural poor through gas tax increases but discourages all business through the retail sales tax hike. This government has no concern for eastern Ontario.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Lupusella: Yesterday I joined with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to share a most important event. For the first time in Metropolitan Toronto, we are observing Motorcycle Awareness Month. Metro Chairman Dennis Flynn read the proclamation on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto council naming May as the month of motorcycle awareness.

Motorcycles are a popular form of transportation which is constantly increasing. In Ontario, there are nearly 500,000 licensed motorcycle drivers. They use this mode of transportation to get to work and for recreation.

The motorcycle rider is a particularly vulnerable individual. He or she is sharing the road with persons using much heavier vehicles. All are travelling at high speeds. It is essential that we improve the record of injury and fatalities involving motorcycles. During a shorter driving season, motorcyclists account for a much higher number of fatal accidents than do other drivers.

While the government seeks to enact better regulations and education programs and while we step up enforcement measures, we must all recognize our responsibility for a more responsible attitude while driving. In this way we will do more than observe a month where we proclaim motorcycle awareness; we will be on our way to creating a safer driving environment for all people using the road.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: Yesterday the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) failed to acknowledge the enormous deficiencies of the corrections system. Inmates in need of psychiatric care are being simply incarcerated when they should be receiving treatment. The use of solitary confinement in segregation cells is not an uncommon practice in the handling of mentally disturbed inmates. There is no opportunity for appeal, and for inmates already identified as having a need for psychological treatment, such confinement is bound to be a trauma.

I urge the minister to address this human injustice. It is unconscionable simply to incarcerate these men and women without treatment. It is also a foolhardy policy, for ultimately these individuals will return to society without any hope of integration and survival, and with every possibility of antisocial behaviour.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FOREST FIRE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I was on the scene of the Kenora 14 forest fire yesterday and I would like to bring the members up to date about that situation.

This fire, which is not under control, is burning near the Whitedog Indian reserve northwest of the towns of Kenora and Keewatin. This fire is about 43 kilometres in length, approximately 26 miles, and up to 10 kilometres wide. Since it started four days ago it has consumed more than 20,000 hectares, about 51,000 acres of forest.

My ministry’s fire crews are making every effort to protect human lives and property. On Monday, 460 residents of the Whitedog Indian reserve were evacuated and taken by bus to Gimli, Manitoba, where emergency shelter is being provided in a former air force base. In addition, about 65 cottagers in the Malachi Lake area were evacuated by train to Winnipeg on Sunday. About 10 cottages in this popular recreation area were burned, but our fire crews were able to save more than 250 other cottages in the burned area.

I commend their hard work under very trying conditions. Cottages on Sherwood Lake, Pickerel Lake and Pelicanpouch Lake have also been protected, as was a tourist operation on Cygnet Lake and the Neechy resource centre. In addition, the greenhouse complex on the White-dog reserve remains unharmed.

There are more than 42 Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews on the scene. We are using eight CL-215 water bombers, including two planes borrowed from Quebec and two from Manitoba. Seven helicopters are also being used to transport crews, carry out emergency evacuations and assist in fighting the fire from the air.

Our crews are today trying to take advantage of slightly cooler temperatures to knock down the head of the fire. The winds shifted yesterday afternoon, and the fire is now moving back east towards Kenora over some of the burned area.

Because of the thick smoke coming from the fire, the Ontario Provincial Police may close the Trans-Canada Highway through the area today. An emergency response team of MNR and OPP officials met this morning to discuss the possible closure of as many as five other roads near the fire.

This province may be facing a terrible fire season. The culmination of several winters with warmer-than-average temperatures and little snow, combined with a warm, dry spring, has left our northern forests, particularly in the northwest, in tinder-dry condition. Kenora 14 is the worst fire Ontario has had so early in the season since 1980. That year, another fire in the Kenora area, Kenora 23, consumed 300,000 acres before it was extinguished.

Although this province is one of the best equipped to fight forest fires in Canada, we need the public’s help in preventing fires from starting. There are currently 43 forest fires burning across the province. What is most alarming is that every single one of them was caused by human carelessness.

Forest fires cost this province an average of $1 billion every year. Seventy per cent of those fires are caused by people. An unattended campfire, a careless match, a discarded cigarette butt, any one of these careless gestures can lead to the needless destruction of acres of prime forest.

Because of the gravity of the situation, I have imposed a restricted fire zone across most of northwestern Ontario. MNR staff will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the safety and protection of the people and property in northwestern Ontario.

I urge everyone enjoying Ontario’s great outdoors to use great caution to help prevent any more forest fires.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am introducing for first reading today the Planning Amendment Act.

My objective is to streamline the planning process to help municipalities and all interested groups that are looking for ways to provide more affordable housing throughout Ontario.

Indeed, we are all players in this, sharing a major responsibility -- governments, private sector and consumers alike.

My ministry is committed to meeting provincial housing objectives. Apart from the amendments, on which I shall speak in a moment, my ministry is also undertaking a range of initiatives to help meet these objectives. For example, we are preparing municipal planning guidelines to help municipalities plan for affordable housing. These guidelines are about residential intensification and meeting the goal of 25 per cent affordable housing in every community.

As well, we are involved in developing statements on housing policy and land use policy.

I would emphasize that my ministry has an important contribution to make in the area of land use planning and the regulatory process. This is why the Planning Act amendments are our priority.

The bill I am introducing today includes several changes to further this government’s priority to help provide housing throughout the province. These changes are, first, recognizing the provision of a range of housing types as a provincial interest. This will enable my ministry to work with the Ministry of Housing to guide and direct municipalities in our collective effort to provide housing. Second, it will reduce the overall time frame for the zoning process to a minimum of 41 days from the current minimum, 65 days. This change reflects our goal to ensure efficiency in the planning process.

An additional change will clarify that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may define a local planning matter to be of provincial interest whether or not a formal policy statement has been declared under

section 3 of the Planning Act. This change will ensure that provincial guidelines and other government interests in land uses may continue to be declared matters of provincial interest where appropriate; for example, the restriction of development around airports, or affordable housing initiatives.

The remaining changes of this bill are intended to improve the effectiveness of the Planning Act and do not alter its fundamental principles in any way.

I would reiterate my ministry’s steadfast commitment to municipalities and all interested parties looking for ways to provide more affordable housing throughout Ontario.

I would emphasize again that my ministry appreciates the co-operative work required to meet the affordable housing objectives. We have consulted and will continue to consult with municipalities. Less than a week ago, I was with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at a meeting with the mayors of municipalities in the greater Toronto area to discuss affordable housing. A few weeks before that, cabinet met in Perth for the same reason with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. This is important work. It shall continue.

Similarly, our work continues with the ministries of Housing and Government Services to meet the urgent need to provide affordable housing throughout Ontario.

RESPONSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). I am pleased that he has made a statement about housing today. I am not quite sure what the statement is. The statement seems to indicate that the government intends to introduce some legislation -- later on today, I presume -- and that it is considering several other very serious matters that, sooner or later, it will get around to sharing with us.

I am confused somewhat by what is in this brief statement today. For example, the minister says -- the one specific thing that one can pick out -- he is reducing the overall time frame for the zoning process to a minimum of 41 days from the current minimum of 65 days. That is interesting, but that is not the problem. The problem is not the minimum number of days that are required; it is the maximum number of days that are actually used. It seems to me he has attacked the wrong end of the horse here.

It seems to me it would have been much more sensible for the minister to --

Mr. B. Rae: It depends which end of the horse is up.

Mr. Breaugh: I will explain later to my leader which end is which.

It would make much more sense for the minister to announce today that he intends to use his powers under the Planning Act to require that an official plan statement for each municipality simply be that 25 per cent of the new residential construction be for affordable housing than to go on to define that specifically.

There is a good deal of fuzzification here that bothers me. It seems to me that what the minister has said today is that he is going to expedite something, but he is not sure what. I point out to him that we do not have a need for a range of housing sales techniques. If, for example, one is talking about downtown Toronto, surely we do not need to encourage and to expedite the construction and sale of luxury condominium units. Surely he has a clearer focus on the nature of the problem than that.

We will await the specific details, if and when he ever chooses to share them with us. I am happy he made a statement today. I just wish he could have said something when he made that statement.

FOREST FIRE

Mr. Wildman: I welcome the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) regarding the fire situation in the northwest. We indeed face a very serious threat this year because of the low precipitation. I join with other members of the House in congratulating the Ministry of Natural Resources fire crews for the work they are doing to try to protect lives and property, as well as our forest resource, in the Kenora area.

I also join with the minister in expressing our thanks to our sister provinces of Manitoba and Quebec for their assistance. I would have liked the minister to have made clear to the House, though, what involvement Indian people may have in the fighting of the forest fires and what training is being provided to ensure they will be able to protect themselves and their homes during the full fire season this year.

It is tragic that the Islington band on the Whitedog reserve is suffering from this situation and has had to face evacuation. As all of us in this House know that this band, along with the Grassy Narrows band, has suffered probably more from the degradation of the environment than any other group of people in Ontario. It seems that they go through one serious, tragic situation after another. I hope that in protecting their village and in ensuring that they can return to their homes, we will be doing all we can as a province, as a Legislature and as a government to ensure that the community can be rebuilt and that the Islington band can go on to prosper in the future.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: I wish to comment on the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs today in the House. We cautiously and respectfully receive this with some appreciation. It responds to a series of questions that have been raised by this side of the House.

In the absence of the detailed bill and a proper, objective analysis of its impact, it is hard to really comment. However, it is clear that in terms of this government’s ability to react to the affordable housing crisis, we are again seeing more of a patchwork approach than a long-term, sound management approach to this matter.

To illustrate the point, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs last year about the very point he raises in his statement today, the matter of additional change which “will clarify that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may define a local planning matter to be of provincial interest, whether or not a formal policy statement has been declared under

section 3 of the Planning Act.”

Last year, we asked him if he would look at the problem of exclusionary bylaws and the fact that they work to discriminate against student housing, all the existing housing stock in this province. The minister said he would get back to us. We have not heard anything concrete from the government on this very critical issue. I will again be tabling additional petitions from the students at McMaster University asking the minister and the government if they will eliminate these exclusionary bylaws. We ask the minister to clarify soon if this is the kind of item to which he is referring.

It just goes to show. Within a week of advising future home owners in this province that the budget of the Treasurer will have the effect of increasing the cost of an affordable unit in this province by some $3,000, it is important to note that we are now getting these statements to in some way indicate that the government has a balanced approach or some long-term plan when in fact it does not. We need a proper, comprehensive approach to housing and this critical shortage problem and we ask the minister to participate more aggressively in that debate.

Mr. McCague: One cannot help but be happy about a statement that talks about more affordable housing. However, I am not sure this kind of ivory tower planning is going to work. On the one hand, the minister is telling the municipalities that if they would like to, they can open on Sundays. On the other hand, he is telling them that if he does not like what they are doing, he is going to tell them what to do in the housing field. The minister has a provincial mandate over local autonomy. He is interfering in every way possible, or so it would seem.

FOREST FIRE

Mr. Pollock: I can appreciate the Minister of Natural Resources going to Kenora to view the fire situation there, and let us hope these fires can be brought under control. I do not doubt for one minute that the Ontario Provincial Police is doing everything possible to try to prevent any loss of life and I am sure those firefighter crews are working around the clock to actually put out those fires.

One thing I am a little surprised at is the portion of the statement on page five that says, “This province is one of the best equipped to fight forest fires in Canada.” Why is it not the best? We are the richest province in Canada and we have a large timber reserve, so we should be the best equipped. I feel that only two planes from Quebec and only two planes from Manitoba are not enough for a situation like this, with one of the worst forest fires in a decade. We should be doing more, and one would ask, why was this area not sealed off a little more quickly to prevent this fire from spreading?

Mr. Harris: It might be appropriate, as we commend the firefighters and the equipment, to congratulate former Premier Bill Davis. Two of these CL-215 water bombers are on the scene there, fighting, because Bill Davis said: “No, I don’t want a jet. I want water bombers for the north.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: It was a fair way down the road to Damascus before that conversion took place, if I recall correctly.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer. I wonder if his officials have made him aware of a very harsh fact in his budget. Again, I am sure that if he had to do it all over again, he would do it differently and I am sure he might want to reflect on it before the House finally approves the budget bills.

I know he will be as shocked and surprised as I was to learn, when we had time to consider the budget, that for a taxpayer with a total income of $20,000 a year, when you include provincial income tax, tax credits and rebates, health premiums, the retail sales tax and the gas tax, the Ontario taxpayer pays more than a taxpayer in any other province in Canada. In the wealthiest province in Canada, we are sticking it to our poorest citizens more harshly than any other jurisdiction. How can the Treasurer explain that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept those numbers, and actually, the first time the New Democratic Party put them forward, it at least had the good grace to say that Newfoundland taxpayers were at least minusculely worse off than us.

Mr. B. Rae: Before your budget.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No. We would be very, very glad to review those numbers, but the honourable member would certainly be aware that with the tax credits that are built into the budget, our taxpayers paying personal income tax pay at a rate that is the second-lowest in Canada if they are in the low- and middle-income --

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: OK; all right; our health premiums. As far as those are concerned, we have substantial improvements for the low end of the income scale. As a matter of fact, just under 400,000 of our citizens get free Ontario health insurance plan care completely, and of course all the senior citizens who live in this province get the excellent OHIP care at no cost whatsoever, as well as free drugs. There is a wide range of programs that the honourable member has not factored into what he considers to be such an explosive statement.

Mr. B. Rae: I will be glad to share our analysis with the Treasurer. The tax is based on figures that are publicly available, and whatever figures are publicly available, we have used: In British Columbia, $1,527; in Alberta, $1,213; Saskatchewan, $955; Manitoba, $916; Ontario, $1,834; and with the provinces to the east of us, Quebec, $1,228; New Brunswick, $1,579; Nova Scotia, $1,502; Prince Edward Island, $1,420; Newfoundland, $1,794 -- less than Ontario, which is leading the pack even when you roll in the tax credits, when you include everything on the table.

When you put it all together, they are sticking it to our poorest citizens more harshly than any other government in this country. How does the Treasurer explain it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not accept those numbers and the honourable member would be aware, in addition to the facts I gave him a moment ago, that the retail sales tax, even at the level of eight per cent, is still lower than every province to the east of us, and for example, although this probably was not factored into the honourable member’s numbers, we have the cheapest beer in Canada.

Mr. B. Rae: Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake.” The Treasurer says, “Let them drink beer.” The reality is that they still get stuck when it comes to taxes.

The Treasurer, who has done about as much for restraint in this province as Henry VIII did for restraint some few hundred years ago, has said -- he should know -- that he has raised $12 billion in a tax grab since he took power in 1985. It would have cost the government less than one per cent of that, $100 million, to eliminate all income taxes for people who are at or below the poverty line in Ontario. Why could the Treasurer not at least have done that in this budget? With $12 billion in extra revenue since this government took power, all it would have cost was less than one per cent of that. Why could the Treasurer not have done that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is getting himself all excited simply because he has tunnel vision. It is not possible for him to look at the good that was done with the money contributed to the provincial Treasury by the taxpayers of this province.

The honourable member will know that we have improved the quality of education at the post-secondary level. We have new initiatives at grades 1 and 2. We are spending a lot more money on improving the environment; both the minister and his chief critic are aware of that. We have a new allocation to improve our roads and public transit, and so the list goes. To be subjected to criticism for having taxes that are too high, and inadequate services, seems to me on the face of it to be totally unfair.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure the Minister of Health will heartily approve of the Treasurer’s priorities in terms of where spending is going, who is spending what and who is getting it.

Mr. Speaker: Question to the Minister of Health?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question that again relates to the letter from Dr. Martin Barkin, MD, BScMed, MA, FRCSC, the Deputy Minister of Health, who wrote to the hospitals in such encouraging terms on April 21, 1988.

I wonder if the minister is aware that as a result of the letter that has been received, the Wellesley Hospital has said to us when we asked some questions, and I am quoting, “There will be a reduction in services, but we are not sure to what degree.”

St. Joseph’s Hospital in London has a deficit of $2.6 million. Their review indicates that the hospital is not at fault. They are looking at cutbacks in some services; for example, closing beds in coronary care, intensive care and neonatal intensive care.

Is the minister aware that this is what is happening as a result of the letter that was sent out by Dr. Barkin and as a result of the message from her government that since it cannot stop itself in any other area --

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

Mr. B. Rae: -- what is it going to do is put a cork on the steam kettle when it comes to hospitals?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important, when we discuss this subject, to know that it is our intention to ensure that essential services are maintained in all the hospitals of this province. As well, it is our goal, as stated as long ago as April 1987 by the previous minister when he announced a special allocation to assist hospitals, that we expect them to submit realistic and balanced budgets. We intend for them to do that and will assist them in every way to ensure fiscal responsibility in the management of our health care system.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot have it both ways. I want to get the minister to focus again on what the government is doing. On the one hand, the government is saying how concerned it is with respect to the provision of services. On the other hand, it is telling hospitals that they have to cut. That is what she is saying; she is using the words “service realignment.”

Does the minister not realize that when she cuts services in hospitals, she is cutting the access that people have to health and that it is a very dangerous thing to do?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me reiterate to the Leader of the Opposition that the majority of the hospitals in this province operate with balanced budgets; indeed, some 25 per cent of them have surplus budgets. We intend, through our reviews of those that have experienced difficulty, to share the expertise of those that have managed over the last few years to balance their budgets.

We believe in the funding of hospitals fairly. Our two-pronged approach -- to look at those that are having problems and to reallocate or look at the rational use of resources in our system -- is a fiscally responsible approach and one which, as we offer advice and assistance to hospitals, will allow them to provide services to their community that have been well planned and are necessary.

Mr. B. Rae: How can a hospital under the minister’s jurisdiction, under the regime which she is establishing, now possibly offer more or better service? How can it shorten a waiting list, how can it provide an operation any earlier, how can it make sure that someone can get into intensive care if it is forced to cut back on intensive care beds, forced to cut back on neonatal service, forced to cut back?

Because the letter from her ministry to the hospitals in this province has stated explicitly now that it is the policy -of the government of Ontario that staff hiring should be curtailed and that services should be “realigned,” which we all know is a euphemism for “cutback.” That is precisely what it is. It can have no other meaning to those hospitals that are getting this message.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First of all, realignment does not mean cut. Second, neonatal and cardiac intensive care are part of life-support funding systems and not included in global budgeting. Third, the member knows, as does every member in this House, that our system is designed to ensure that those who require it, and have life-threatening situations and emergencies, receive priority.

We are committed to maintaining the fine, quality health care services that we have and also to ensuring that we have fair funding of our hospitals and fiscal responsibility. If the member is suggesting that we should have open-ended hospital funding, he should stand up and say so.

Mr. Wildman: No.

Mr. Eves: That’s not what we are suggesting at all. Do you have some inflammation in your ear, or what?

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. B. Rae: She gives 18 per cent to OHIP and turns around and talks about what she is doing to the hospitals. It is a sick joke.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is to the Minister of Health and it relates to the same question. It is in regard, of course, to the letter that was sent by her deputy minister concerning the whole issue of deficits.

I am disturbed to hear the minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition talk about the good guys and the bad guys in terms of surplus and deficits. It appears that the minister is putting them in two categories: those that have a deficit are obviously wearing the black hats and are bad guys and those that have a surplus are obviously showing the way and acting as an example.

I would like to ask the minister whether she will clearly state -- and I did not hear a clear answer to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition relative to the concern we have about deficits -- if it is the intention on the part of her ministry to cover the operating deficit of a hospital when it is clearly indicated that deficit has been created through no fault of the hospital itself.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said before on a number of occasions, it is our goal to see that the hospitals provide the highest-quality service with the greatest possible efficiency. To achieve this aim, we notified them about one year ago that we expected them to submit realistic and balanced budgets. We have begun a review of those 22 hospitals that have had recurring deficits. The information we glean from those reviews, which are ongoing right now in the ministry, will allow us to ensure that hospitals are fairly funded.

Mr. Brandt: St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia has the same problem as St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto, and many others throughout this province. In many instances they have had outside audits completed as of this date. The Ministry of Health is aware of the results of those audits.

It has been demonstrated that St. Joseph’s Hospital in Sarnia cannot run any more efficiently than it is at the present time unless it reduces service. It has identified every cost-saving measure that could be used except, at this point in time, a flat-out reduction in service, which I guess the minister would have to approve. They are still going to run a deficit because of the increased workload in the hospital in question and also because of increased drug and surgical supply costs, just to name a few of the things that are making up the deficit they are now realizing.

The deficit at this particular hospital is running between $500,000 and $600,000. Will the deficit be covered -- that is all the hospital wants to know -- or is it going to have to cut back service?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said a number of times in this House, we are conducting a two-pronged review. The first

part is a review of the 22 hospitals that have had unique and chronic problems. The hospital the member mentioned is one of those. What we learn from that review will allow us to assist those hospitals to maintain the essential services and to work more efficiently and also to see why there are those that have repeated deficits. There are others; I do not agree that there are white hats and black hats. I believe we all have the same goal, and that is the provision of services in as fiscally responsible a manner as we can and being as efficient as possible with the use of our resources.

We will assist those hospitals. The information we obtain will allow us to bring predictability into hospital budgeting and to make sure the communities have the essential services they require.

Mr. Brandt: There are really only, as far as I see it, two options available to a hospital such as St. Joseph’s if the deficit is not covered. One that I have already suggested to the minister is to cut services. The second -- and this option is in fact being exercised by some hospitals at this time -- is to enter into a leaseback deal with private leasing firms such as our universities are now contemplating with respect to their library systems. This leaseback arrangement has now been carried out by three London hospitals. Which, in fact, does the minister prefer?

Does she want a cutback in service, which she indicates is not a viable option being entertained by her at the moment, or does she want to see our hospitals selling their equipment, purchased, I might add, by the Ontario taxpayers, and having this equipment then leased back through private leasing firms? That is really the only option available to them.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the leader of the third party is being simplistic in his approach of only two options. In fact, what I am hoping will come out of the 22 reviews and the total review of our hospital remuneration system is a number of options as to how we can help hospitals to ensure they are as efficient as possible. We are looking right now at the implementation of computer information systems to give hospitals the information they need to be able to manage their resources.

I believe the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party, as well as all members of this Legislature, have the same goal as I do; that is, to make sure that all the institutions in this province are operating at peak efficiency, delivering the highest possible quality services to their communities.

Mr. Brandt: The members of the government can applaud that, but in fact the hospitals are being put in a position that is absolutely untenable for them at this time, and in fact, they cannot provide the service the minister is guaranteeing is going to be provided.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. It relates to comments made by the Premier yesterday with regard to special legislation which he suggested he might be bringing in to provide workers at the SkyDome construction site if there is a work stoppage at that particular site.

In light of the fact that he is prepared to undertake some sort of measure in order to provide that the construction work be carried out at the SkyDome, can the Premier tell this House why he is willing to take that action and yet not willing to legislate an end to the Wheel-Trans strike?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not say that. That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier was reported as having said that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no idea what a report is saying, but I did not say it.

Mrs. Marland: Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) assured us that every member in this House cares for the disabled. But caring alone will not do anything for the disabled community through these very difficult times.

Recognizing that this is not the first time the disabled community in Metro has been used as a pawn in this kind of dispute, would the Premier agree to deem transportation services for the disabled to be an essential service and avoid this hardship happening again in the future?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not contemplating that course of action at the moment.

Mrs. Marland: I think the disabled community will be very concerned.

This morning I received a phone call from Susanne Moss. She is a member of the disabled community here in Toronto. Ms. Moss was extremely upset about two things, which perhaps the Premier could address.

First, Ms. Moss phoned the telephone number his government has made public, which provides the emergency taxi service to disabled persons on the Ministry of Community and Social Services list. A Co-op taxi came, picked her up and took her to her destination free of charge, but did not ask for any identification. Ms. Moss was very alarmed about this.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mrs. Marland: I have to give this background in order that the Premier can answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but I would appreciate the supplementary question as well.

Mrs. Marland: We got several news broadcasters in the city to phone the same number. They too were able to get a taxi at their doorstep. Obviously, the ministry is not checking to ensure that this emergency service is not being abused.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mrs. Marland: Yesterday, Ms. Moss was told by the Minister of Labour’s office that the minister was about to legislate the Wheel-Trans workers back to work. Will the Premier tell this House today when he is going to direct the Minister of Labour to put an end to this strike and do the humane thing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot speak to Ms. Moss’s problem, except I thought the member was going to say the taxi did not show up. I am delighted that at least the taxi showed up. As the member is aware, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has a plan in place that is trying to take into account emergency situations like Ms. Moss’s, and we are trying to do the best we can in the circumstances.

At the moment it is not the government’s position to intervene. This is being monitored hourly by the Minister of Labour, and at the moment he is of the opinion that there are some prospects for a settlement, and that is our hope at the moment.

EDUCATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It concerns deaf education in the province of Ontario. Last week or 10 days ago, I asked the minister a question about why there are so few deaf educators in our schools for the deaf. I suppose the minister is also aware that there are no deaf administrators or any deaf people in senior positions at all in the three schools for the deaf in Ontario. I wonder if he could tell me what role his ministry is playing to actively promote the deaf community in those kinds of positions, or is his ministry part of the active, systemic and systematic discrimination against the deaf in employment in our schools?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that since he raised the question, I did take the time, in fact, to visit the Ernest C. Drury School for the hearing impaired. I want to assure him that indeed our ministry does actively promote the hiring and placement of hearing-impaired people in responsible positions within those facilities. I must say that during the course of my tour of that facility, I had the opportunity to interact with both students and staff, and I believe frankly that our ministry and the professionals within those facilities are indeed doing a commendable job.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to send across to the minister the résumé of one Clifton Carbin, MA, who was born in Ontario, who is now one of the chief deaf educators in the country, has written many books, administered several programs in British Columbia and who applied for a job as head of the Robarts School in London last year. The ministry did not even call him to interview. Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot explain the specifics of that particular application. I will be happy to look into it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. On Monday, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), the minister stated that the death of Mr. Pitcher, who was on a waiting list for heart surgery, was an isolated incident and that setting up a bed registry would solve the problem.

Let me tell the minister about another incident, involving a former constituent of mine, Mr. Thornton from McKellar, whose heart surgery had been postponed five times. When he was finally scheduled for surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital two weeks ago, he suffered a heart attack on the operating table and died three days later.

I have talked to a number of cardiovascular surgeons and have been told that every single heart surgeon in this city experiences the same problem on a regular basis. It is obvious that these are not isolated incidents at all. The minister received an additional $1.2 billion for her ministry in the budget of two weeks ago. Her ministry acknowledged some four years ago that a fourth cardiovascular unit is needed in the city of Toronto, but she has done nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: People are dying because there are no beds available for this type of surgery. The buck stops at the minister. How many more people have to die before this minister spends the money and spends it wisely, where it should be spent?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, as I said earlier, our system is designed so that those in life-threatening situations receive priority. Advances in cardiac surgery in this province have allowed doctors to treat a wider range of people. A greater number of people are now recommended for surgery and this has resulted in a waiting list. However, it is the patient’s doctor who determines if he requires emergency surgery. If that emergency is deemed necessary, the treatment, as I understand it, is readily available.

Mr. Eves: Let me inform the minister with some facts. I have taken the liberty of discussing this situation with a number of heart surgeons this morning again. For example, one heart surgeon in Metro Toronto had four cases scheduled for today. He is able to do one; the other three have to go home. Another has a patient in urgent need, with chest pains on a regular basis. He was told there are no beds available. He has phoned every cardiovascular unit in Metropolitan Toronto. He told me it is not uncommon for patients in an unstable condition and on intravenous to have to wait several days before a bed becomes available to perform this surgery.

There are no beds. A bed registry will not solve the problem. We have seen paediatric cases transferred from this province to the state of New York. Are heart specialists’ cases going to be next? Are heart patients going to have to go to Buffalo next to get proper treatment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The three units in Metropolitan Toronto have significantly increased their workload with additional funding from the ministry. As well, the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council is reviewing the demand for cardiovascular services at the present time and also reviewing the necessity for the establishment of a fourth unit.

Mr. Eves: That is not true and you know it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is true.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning theft in the Ministry of Housing. On or about the afternoon of April 20, 1988, the Treasurer deposited $468 million in her accounts. Some time during the next eight days, $27 million has gone missing. Her estimates show she has $440 million. Who stole the $27 million?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like a little more detail about that. Can the member tell me more?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that is asking for a supplementary.

Mr. Breaugh: It is $27 million. It is about that high off the floor and green. She will notice it when she finds it.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Just the facts.

Mr. Breaugh: She is new; I have got to help her out.

On or about the same afternoon, the Treasurer announced that there would be 30,000 nonprofit housing units allocated by the ministry this year. Somewhere in the next eight days, somebody stole 15,000 housing units. What happened to those allocations?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The announcement in the budget was that we would be increasing our nonprofit allocation by 30,000 units over the next three years. Those units are going to be a combination of new building plus potential purchasing. Nothing was misplaced. All 30,000 of those units will come on stream, as we said they would, over the next three years.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, in its report Missing the Mark, notes that only 16 cents of every dollar spent by municipal, provincial and federal governments together was devoted to training, skills development and labour adjustment.

The poor and the jobless need training. The council further stated that the existing array of programs failed to deliver on the promise of more training. Can the minister tell this House why his Ministry of Skills Development, the ministry that has the responsibility for job training, underspent its budget by $55 million in 1986-87 and by $77 million in 1987-88?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for her question. As the member has seen, the social planning council did report that in its report Missing the Mark. It felt, too, that more training could be done for social assistance recipients. We agree on that.

In training itself, it takes the co-operation of all three levels of government, as the social planning council has indicated. We have done our part as much as we could in the last couple of years in setting up Ontario’s Training Strategy, which is addressed to training Ontarians. We are quite a leader in that in the province.

We have seen also that the federal government has cut back considerably on its training funding to the province, and that itself has put a tremendous burden on the province. We stand extremely committed in regard to training and we are doing an exceptional job. I am sure more can be done.

Also, it is shown that some of the figures used in the social planning report could be investigated a bit more, because the fact is they did not count some of the Futures clients in our group who are on social --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs. Cunningham: Let us then stay with this budget as opposed to blaming the federal government and let us just say that $132 million in the last two years was not spent on vastly needed improved training programs.

The minister does appear, however, to have some unlimited funds that he is able to spend on lavish one-day conferences, such as the one that was held in London last Friday, costing thousands of dollars with free bars and shrimp. The participants at the conference have been in touch with me and they have advised me that they are concerned about the government’s out-of-control spending. They are very embarrassed for the minister and they are very concerned about mismanagement of our tax dollars.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mrs. Cunningham: How can the minister justify these lavish receptions at the same time as he fails to deliver programs to train our workforce?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the conference that the honourable member mentioned is on literacy. We have five regional conferences on literacy being planned across the province. I am a bit disappointed that the member did not see it as necessary when we got all these volunteer groups and agencies that are concerned about literacy and doing a tremendous job there; that because we provided some food for these people, it should be considered lavish.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The amount of work these volunteer groups have done is beyond the few shrimps that we have provided for these groups. Literacy is a great concern here, and we are doing --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all members it is certainly much easier if only one member talks at a time, which is according to the standing orders.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. In my riding of Simcoe Centre is the oldest and the largest retirement community in this province -- it is called Sandy Cove Acres -- and there are across the province about 15 retirement communities and another 15 in the process of coming about. There are problems with these retirement communities.

There is a difficulty with regard to the registration of the ownership of the modular homes; there is a problem with regard to the maintenance fees that are being introduced or increased every year; the populations are ageing; and there is a problem with the Victorian Order of Nurses and Meals on Wheels for these people.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Owen: Can the minister tell us what her ministry, in conjunction with the many other ministries involved, is proposing to try to come to grips with the complex problems that are facing these retirement communities?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am aware of the concerns, as raised by the member for Simcoe Centre, with regard to retirement communities. I assure him that they relate to a whole broad set of issues which involve a number of ministries -- the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

As an initial step, my office has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and with other concerned ministries and we have now released a report regarding retirement communities. As a second phase, we are working on issues which relate to the impact of retirement communities on municipal planning issues.

I do, however, want to assure the member that residents of retirement communities across the province have physicians’ services and acute and chronic home care services available to them. I would use as an example the services which are available in the Sandy Cove retirement community, which the member mentioned as being in his riding. Right in that retirement community, VON is available. There is a foot clinic on site, home care is provided through Simcoe county and the public health department there provides public health nurse visits.

Mr. Owen: We are relatively new to the retirement community concept in this province. They existed for many years before we started them, in various parts of Europe, such as Britain, Sweden, France and Switzerland. They have existed in a various number of the states in the United States. Will the ministry look to see how these jurisdictions endeavour to cope with some of the problems we are facing, to assist us from their example and from what they have gone through?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As part of the work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, extensive consultation had gone on in Canada, particularly in Alberta, and also in the United States there have been workshops and meetings with American groups of retirees and developers of retirement communities. There have been trips to New Jersey and Oregon, where retirement communities have been in the planning stages and have been part of the housing for seniors over a considerable number of years.

I do want to stress that this government has a very strong commitment to community services and, in particular, wants to emphasize community services to retirees and seniors who live in remote and rural areas. We will continue to offer those particular services to the people in today’s retirement communities as well.

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Mrs. Grier: Watching reruns of interviews with the Minister of the Environment is, I am sure, a pastime all members of the House enjoy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a member’s statement or a question?

Mrs. Grier: It is a question for the Minister of the Environment. It refers to recycling. In recycling some of his interviews, I was fascinated by one on The Nature of Things two years ago where the program showed that motor vehicles in Ontario are a major source of atmospheric pollution. In response to a question from Mr. Suzuki, the minister said: “This is one of the areas we are looking at. We’ve had safety checks. I think it would be very useful to have environmental safety checked at the same time. This is another area that our ministry is exploring.”

Given the fact that nothing has been done about this problem since 1986, can the minister tell us down what polluted blind alley his explorations led him?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Interestingly enough, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore inadvertently uses the same rhetoric as the polluting companies in this province, because what the polluting companies say to me is -- and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) would be most familiar with this – “Why don’t you go chasing the vehicles in this province instead of bothering us with members of the investigation enforcement branch? Don’t you realize that the problem is outside of the factories and business in this province and it’s really the vehicles?”

We try to make a good effort in all areas. The member would know that we have increased the funding in this program by some 23 per cent, even though she likes to use dollars. They talk about constant dollars or something like that. In dollars that you have in your wallet, we are spending 23 per cent more on this program.

Also, the federal government, at the urging of provincial governments across this country, has this year implemented Canadian emission standards for the 1988 model year which are now comparable to what used to be the more stringent American standards.

The member also knows that sulphur dioxide is by far the largest source of acid rain in this province. What we did about sulphur dioxide was that we went after the biggest polluters in this province and we have now the toughest regulations anywhere in North America to deal with acid rain.

Mrs. Grier: I do not know what figures the Minister of the Environment is looking at, but if he looks at my figures, he will find that under the party to my left in seating, the actual dollars in 1983-84 were $413,000; the actual dollars in 1988-89 are $382,000. Out of four million cars in the province, 683 were tested last year. Out of a ministry staff of 2,000, there are seven lonely people in the vehicle emissions unit, and it is one per cent of the ministry’ s budget.

Does the minister really think, given that automobile emissions contribute 10 per cent of the acid rain emissions in this country, that is good enough?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is interesting that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a member of the New Democratic Party, would ask a question about emissions from vehicles in this province, very interesting indeed, because last month this government, under the auspices of the Treasurer, took the boldest, single most effective step to stop misfuelling of vehicles and to stop the wrecking of emission control devices by tampering, when he applied an environmental tax which would equalize the cost of leaded and unleaded fuel in this province. The people who claim to be concerned about the environment, would not give three cents, because they are afraid of losing two votes.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Would the minister tell this House how he thinks a tax increase of one cent per litre on gasoline and three cents a litre on unleaded gasoline -- that is 18 cents a gallon -- will affect Ontario tourism and the hospitality industry?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to thank the member for Simcoe East for the question, but I think the message we should be putting across in this province and throughout the world is that we have the best tourism bargains in the world here in Ontario. I think we should also tell the member that we expect our tourism results in this province will be up by at least six per cent in the coming year and I believe that is because of the positive moves this government has taken over the last two years and in the budget that this will happen.

Mr. McLean: If the minister thinks raising the sales tax to eight per cent and increasing the gas tax is going to help the tourist industry, I am afraid he is mistaken. Does the minister not realize that increases in the cost of boat rentals discourage tourists? It is hurting the tourist operators. Three quarters of the buses in Ontario run on regular fuel. The Ontario transport industry operates 50 per cent on regular fuel. Not only that, but older cars that take people with low incomes to work run on regular fuel. Does the minister feel that the 18 cents a gallon his Treasurer has put on the gasoline tax is fair?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I believe the moves the Treasurer has taken are just ones. In this particular case, all of the money that will be collected because of that increase will be spent on roads. This will improve our touring routes and will enable people to travel to all parts of this province and take

part in the great tourism facilities that we have.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Campbell: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Recently her ministry completed a care requirement study which implied, by some press accounts, that 55 per cent of the people in extended care do not require the care. Could the minister clarify the study’s conclusions?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would first provide by way of background some information regarding new extended care legislation which the office for senior citizens’ affairs is working on. The purpose of the legislation is to bring together, in one act, the extended care program which currently takes place under two ministries and three different pieces of now outdated legislation.

One of several initiatives which we undertook in the development of the new legislation was a study of care required by people, mainly senior citizens, in the extended care beds in the province. The study was undertaken in cooperation with the Ontario Nursing Home Association and the Association for Nonprofit Homes and Services for Seniors.

The study showed that 55 per cent of seniors in extended care beds actually require less than 90 minutes of direct care per day. The study did not show that 55 per cent of people do not need to be in institutions. In fact, victims of Alzheimer’s or dementia may not require 90 minutes of direct care per day, but they may, in fact, require 24-hour supervision.

Mr. Campbell: I am concerned that people out there, who are families of people in extended care services, are not receiving that message. Could the ministry consider plans to clarify the situation for those families in a very desperate situation?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As I mentioned, the study was one of a number of initiatives we are undertaking in the development of the new legislation. It does, in fact, refer to extended care in nursing homes and homes for the aged across the province. Those people in extended care beds have, of course, given up their homes, and most of them are permanent residents. Those people are not going anywhere.

Our aim as a government is to prevent inappropriate and unnecessary institutionalization, and I believe the results of that study indicate we are on the right track in providing other support services for seniors in their homes: grouped homes, supported apartment units, a range of choices for the frail elderly who do need assistance.

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier regarding the forest industry’s response to the Premier’s Council report which was issued last month. That report states that the pulp and paper industry should be shifting its technology and investment from commodity goods like newsprint to higher-value specialty products.

However, four days after that report was issued, the only forestry company represented on the Premier’s Council, Abitibi-Price, in fact announced that it plans to build a newsprint mill in Venezuela. That followed an announcement the month before that it is investing in a new mill in Alabama.

What has the Premier done to deal with his council member, Abitibi president Bernd Koken, to ensure that pulp and higher-value paper production takes place here in Canada, not in Venezuela and Alabama?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, I do not have control over Abitibi-Price, any more than the member’s leader has control over him. We are not dictatorial in that regard. One of the things that is happening with some of our multinationals, in fact, is that they are becoming more multinational and are investing in the world.

One of the things that has concerned us, particularly through the Woodbridge, Reed report, is that we have to have far more capital investment in the pulp and paper area, as my honourable friend will know, to compete in more specialty products in that area. It is not an area that has had a high degree of capital investment the last 30 or 40 years.

Mr. Wildman: There hasn’t been any.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, there has been some. There have been some paper machines at Great Lakes Forest Products and others at Dryden and Thunder Bay but, on balance, my friend the member for Algoma is quite right. There is a lot of work to be done.

This is one of the first priorities of the industrial restructuring commission, and there are discussions going on now in that regard. The member will be aware that, in the budget, the Treasurer presented certain proposals with respect to capital cost allowance and research and technology that we think will be beneficial in promoting capital investment in this province to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place to compete in the long term.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In the Premier’s Council report last month, it states that as part of building a world-class industry in this area we need government, industry, labour consensus behind the pulp and paper industry and the profits used in that industry should be used to restructure and invest in new higher-value-added production, as occurred in Sweden.

However, Bernd Koken, the member of the council who is the president of Abitibi, in his statement to his annual meeting last month said his definition of world class is as follows: “To be truly world class, Canada must move beyond its traditional role as a major exporter of products. To do this, our businesses have to be located in places other than Canada.”

What kind of world-class industry is the Premier and the Premier’s Council trying to build; one where we produce higher-value products here in Canada or one where Canadian multinationals take their profits to build plants in Venezuela and Alabama?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think one of the analyses of the Ontario and, indeed, the Canadian economy that was undertaken by the Premier’s Council -- and it came to many conclusions -- is that we do not have enough Canadian-based multinationals, enough companies of scale, to take on the entire world markets.

My honourable friend may want to pass a law saying you cannot move outside of this province, but exactly what is happening is the opposite. We have to assist where we can to create the critical mass to create companies of international scale and dimension. Increasingly, my friend will be aware, international-class companies are locating in a variety of different locations, on different continents, to take advantage of the international markets.

I say to my friend, a Canadian company investing in another country does not preclude in any way its investing in this country and, indeed, tends to be very complementary. Great Lakes, at the same time it made a $400-million investment in paper machines, made an investment in Washington state. Perhaps my friend, from his economic philosophy, would try to pass a law to prevent that from going on. But I say to my honourable friend, trained as he is as an economist, he will know that his political rhetoric in this regard is getting in the way of any reasonable analysis of the economic situation.

MINERAL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday, the federal government announced the Canadian exploration incentive program as a partial resolution of the flow-through share controversy. Under that program, applicants may receive up to 30 per cent of allowable exploration expenses as a grant, up to a maximum of $10 million per corporation.

Could the Treasurer tell me how the province will be treating the federal grants to the mining industry under provincial provisions of the Mining Tax Act, the Corporations Tax Act and the Income Tax Act?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know that the officials of the ministries of Treasury and Revenue and the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) are all interested in this matter and I will be able to give the member a more specific answer after we have had a chance to examine it more closely. I really am very glad indeed that the federal government has decided to extend, by this additional program, the advantages of the old flow-through share program for another six months.

Mr. Pope: In the negotiations that the provincial government is undertaking now with the federal authorities with respect to the tax treatment of these grants, will the provincial government assert reciprocity in treatment of Ontario mineral exploration program grants for federal income tax purposes, in other words, allow them to be deductible for tax purposes?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This deductibility cuts both ways, as I am sure the member is aware. We are very glad that this additional encouragement for mineral exploration continues and we want to have it maximized as far as the recipients are concerned. We have to see that it is fair and equitable, taking the fairly broad range of programs where one jurisdiction taxes the advantages given by another jurisdiction. Traditionally, the credits and the payments are taxed, and normally an additional program goes forward to make up the encouragement and incentive that is basically there.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The Treasurer, in his previous budget, recognized the region of Peel as a high growth area and, accordingly, capital grants were just about equal. In the most recent budget, there appeared to be on the surface a divergence between the amounts allocated, public and separate.

My question to the minister, and this has been asked by opposition members but they apparently are not interested in the answer at this point, is: Can he give me some idea of the pupil ratio, public and separate, in the Peel region, that would achieve two ends, in other words, recognize the high growth area, as we did in the past, and also recognize quality education for the people in my riding?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member points out, the allocations that were made last week were made on the basis of need. Primarily, the funds were committed to the creation of new pupil spaces. The current year’s program should create an additional 45,000 pupil spaces, once fully in place. The criteria in establishing which projects were to get priority were established on the basis of need, on the basis of enrolment growth. Whatever differences may exist between public and separate allocations are primarily a result of whatever differences may arise as a result of enrolment growth in either the elementary or secondary panel.

Mr. Callahan: Can I ask of the minister more specific information as to the -- I am trying to put this clearly -- the pupil ratio in terms of public versus separate at the present time in the Peel region. If he does not have that information, I would appreciate it if that information could be made available at a later time.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The differences in terms of the elementary panel in enrolment growth from 1986 to 1987 between the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Peel Board of Education is that in the Dufferin-Peel separate board, enrolment growth in elementary was 5.4 per cent; in the public sector, it was 0.7 per cent.

In the secondary sector, the Dufferin-Peel enrolment growth at the secondary level was 22 per cent; on the public side, there was a decrease of 0.9 per cent.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Earlier this afternoon, when the official opposition party was asking a question in this House, at that time, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) broadcast to everyone that Margaret Marland had borrowed his car. I would like to set the record straight. I have not borrowed the Attorney General’s car.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Must have been Andy’s.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not sure whose car it was.

Mr. Breaugh: It is right in there with the $27 million missing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounded like a point of personal explanation.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas during the 1987 election campaign, all three political parties expressed their disfavour of municipal bylaws which have the effect of limiting the number of unrelated persons who can legally occupy the same dwelling;

“We therefore call upon the government to act on the petitions of 228 students from McMaster University in Hamilton who have written to the Premier and whose petitions read, in part:

“‘As a student at McMaster University, I strongly urge you to keep your promise to end discriminatory and exclusionary municipal housing bylaws by passing Progressive Conservative MPP Cam Jackson’s Bill 94 as soon as possible.”

That also has been favoured with my signature.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if any other members are having difficulty in hearing what is taking place. I certainly am.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you have gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sola: I have three petitions on Sunday shopping. I will read one.

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

“We are opposed to increased business and commerce on Sundays. The laws regarding Sunday openings should remain in the hands of the provincial government.”

This is signed by 134 constituents. I have two others phrased approximately the same way with 63 signatures and 16 signatures.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Beer from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the Hamilton Civic Hospitals;

Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting Kingsway General Insurance Company;

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting The General Hospital of Port Arthur;

Bill Pr38,

An Act to revive Prow Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Machin Mines Limited.

Your committee recommends that Bill Fr49,

An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Limited, be not reported.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting The General Hospital of Port Arthur.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Simcoe West had some more comments on this legislation.

Mr. McCague: When we adjourned last evening, I was speaking with the minister about Bill 106, complimenting him to some extent on the fact that he has a bill with a lot of amendments that have been and are being sought by municipalities but also warning him that I thought he had overlooked two of the most important recommendations that have been made to him during the discussion on these matters.

Those two points were from the final report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections, when in recommendation 81 it said, “The committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not enact any legislation affecting the local government electoral process within the six months immediately preceding voting day, in an election year.”

And in recommendation 82, it said, “The committee recommends that no changes in the method of election or in the composition of municipal councils or school boards be permitted after January 15 of an election year.”

I am sure the minister feels good about the fact that the comments that came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario did congratulate the minister on having brought forward legislation that is not only innovative and challenging but which contains many of the recommendations previously submitted by the association.

“The association” -- AMO -- “recognizes the urgency of proceeding with the legislation so that all concerned become fully conversant with the new procedures and requirements prior to election day, November 14.

“However, having accepted this condition, the association wishes to advise that its response to Bill 106 has been immediate and therefore must be considered to be preliminary. Many of our municipal members find themselves in the same position and, no doubt, additional recommendations will be forthcoming in the very near future.”

That is just the problem. As various members have said, in particular the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) yesterday, the confusion that this whole proliferation of bills is bringing to the November 14 municipal election scene is horrendous in the minds of many people, and the honourable minister is a wise enough man to know that.

I can understand, and I think we can all understand, that probably Lindsay, Brantford, Barrie and a few other of those bigger places are well equipped to handle these kinds of changes. They have the financial resources and they have the manpower to do that. But for some it is very difficult.

As Municipal Affairs critic for the smaller municipalities for our party, the initial reactions we have had to the bill -- and I must say they are initial since this bill has not been tabled for very long -- are various. The retroactive application of the expenses and contributions limits concerns them. The role of the clerk concerns them, and that comes not only from clerks but from municipal councillors as well. The length of the campaign period is of concern, as are the expenses placed on the municipalities and the fact that it appears it could be implemented for 1988.

Making the bill retroactive to January 1, 1988, could cause accounting and administrative problems for many candidates. Some candidates who had previously decided to run in the 1988 elections may have begun their campaign fund-raising before the beginning of 1988, and the question often asked is, “Will these funds be unavailable to them for the coming campaign?” Others will consider it to be unfair if he allows people to use funds for this campaign that were collected prior to the beginning of 1988.

There is a concern that the extra duties placed upon the clerks will create an unprecedented burden on them. Again, I reiterate that, in many of the smaller municipalities, the operation of the clerk’s office is a one-person operation; some of them have a secretary. But I think the minister must realize that, whether the municipality has 100,000 people or 1,000 people, the work basically is of the same magnitude and, I suggest to him, much more when you consider the per-person magnitude of the problems he is thrusting upon them.

Clerks will have to prepare a voters’ list, conduct recounts, monitor expenses and contributions, enforce disclosure measures, provide rebates, and the list really does go on and on.

As I said, there is concern about the campaign period. As I understand it, the bill that has been introduced provides for a 14.5-month campaign period, defined to commence on January 1 of an election year and end three months after polling. While some will say that that is long for a campaign period, there are other municipalities that are saying it should be longer. When they say it should be longer, they are saying that it should go more than three months after November 14, at least in the year 1988 if the minister persists in proceeding, in order that they may have a little time to acquaint themselves a little better with the whole system and get their books in order.

There is some concern about the number of voters’ lists that have to be printed. I know this is minimal in a lot of ways, but some people are concerned about getting them in too many hands and about who picks those up in the scheme of things; then you get a letter wanting you to subscribe to Readers’ Digest or whatever a few days after the election.

I just think the minister would be doing the honourable thing if he were to decide to put off this bill and make it effective for the 1991 elections. We could start debating it even right now or right after the 1988 elections.

I think there is a lot of confusion that is going to surround it. As I said before, the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) seems to be content with it; the minister seems to be, but I am not sure they are getting the message from the smaller municipalities in the province, and it is my job to speak for those smaller municipalities, many of whom have spoken to me.

With that, I just sum up by saying that there are a lot of good things in the bill. It is flawed in many ways, in that I do not think the municipalities are going to be able to cope with it, and it would be a very honourable move if he were to withdraw it. We will have time to talk more about that when, as I understand, the minister sends it to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Are there any questions or comments on the remarks by the member for Simcoe West? If not, would anyone else wish to participate in the debate? If not, Minister, would you like to sum up in reply?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Madam Speaker, I just want to make a few comments here in summing up. I want to express appreciation to the members for their participation. I believe this act is going to do a great deal for the municipalities of Ontario and for the municipal people. It is one which has been under discussion.

I know there was some discussion about how long the municipal people have had an opportunity to discuss this. It was introduced into the House here by way of a statement on December 10. It was sent out to all municipalities and they were told that this would be effective on January 1. Through some of our municipal seminars, we have had an opportunity to talk about this, and the municipal people themselves and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario seemed to be very much interested in the bill and in its content.

We have had very close liaison with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in fact, in regard to some of the parts of Bill 106. The AMO comments were to congratulate the minister on having brought forth legislation that is not only innovative and challenging but which contains many of the recommendations which they have been asking for. It would appear to me that AMO was saying, “Let us get on with it.”

I was surprised to hear from the critic, my colleague from the New Democratic Party the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), that the New Democratic Party would oppose the bill. Actually, some of the parts of this bill are what his party has been asking for. Indeed, I know that his party and others have been asking about the optional tax credit or the contribution credit, as we call that. In fact, the large urban

section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario contacted his leader and the letter that was sent out to all municipalities said, “I have discussed this bill with the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Rae indicated his initial reaction is favourable,” so I cannot understand the opposition and the fact that he is going to oppose the bill.

There was a lot of comment in regard to the tax credit. If the honourable member does not want the tax credit, he should just tell me. We can accommodate him. That is what he was talking about.

Indeed, with regard to the tax credit, I noticed that Robin Sears, the principal secretary of the Ontario NDP, even thought that the bill had passed. He said it was passed last month, limiting campaign contribution expenses. He likes that. Also, he has said the NDP “don’t raise money from development lawyers” and that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are enthusiastic about the new legislation. I wonder if Mr. Sears knows who is bringing the legislation in. It is his own party that is finding fault with the bill and, certainly, the discussion about the optional tax credit.

Some members have asked where the small communities of this province are going to get their auditors. I can tell members that there are more auditors in the small communities across this province than they realize.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Could it be that Robin Sears doesn’t talk to Mike Breaugh?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I guess I could ask if Mr. Sears talks to the critic for the New Democratic Party. I am sure after today they will get together.

I want to emphasize that this contribution rebate is optional. Many have asked for it. I have had letters from all parts of the province and from the areas that many members in the opposition represent, saying, if they can contribute to federal and provincial elections, why can they not do the same with municipal elections? They have asked for an opportunity to contribute so that the appearance is not that it is big development and the big people who are making the contributions in municipal elections but that the average citizen on the street has that opportunity.

As far as the work of the municipality is concerned, this is optional. I would presume that the large percentage of the municipalities of Ontario will not want to take the opportunity to opt into it. But the option is there, it has been asked for, and I believe that it is a good one. I might say that at the meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at the end of March down in Perth, AMO spoke very forcefully about the need for this tax credit.

I want to say also that the materials will be prepared in easy language. We have held seminars around the province and there appears to be a very great acceptance indeed. The ministry staff have met with AMO, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and with trustees’ associations in regard to the content of this bill.

I have faith in the elected leaders across this province. What we are endeavouring to do is to raise the importance of municipal government. I think for too long we have looked upon municipal government as the poor cousin to the federal and provincial governments. I feel that municipal government is every bit as important as federal and provincial governments.

This is another way of making sure that it has a higher profile and that we can raise the profile of municipal government across this province, by making sure that we have some of those reforms in place, reforms that are going to make the governing of municipalities much more improved and, to a greater extent, create a greater interest in serving in municipal government.

I could go on with a number of other comments in regard to the bill, but we are quite content that this bill go to committee and we look forward to those discussions at that time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on general government.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Elliot: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the floor to complete what is really my first speech in this Legislative Assembly. I would like to review a couple of the items, although I do not plan to repeat the 15 minutes or so that I spoke on Thursday afternoon last.

I began by talking a lot about my great riding of Halton North and the gracious people who saw fit to send me down here last September 10. I need to review the expectations that I feel those people have of me here. I identified their number one concern as protecting the environment. They want quality health care delivered; they want quality education and they want improvement in their roads. They want those four things, while we balance the budget and give out sufficient operating capital so that the boards and agencies can operate in a meaningful way.

They request longer projections on capital expenditures, those same boards and agencies. In line with the report of the Premier’s Council’s, they want us to make available sufficient research and development funding to compete in a high-tech industry on a global basis.

I took a fair bit of time last Thursday to talk about the research-and-development budget considerations because I feel that we have made a good start in that area. The second thing I had time to talk about a bit and highlight was the increase of $1.2 billion in health care expenditures. I think those are critical and, in a very personal way, I talked about that last Thursday.

Today I would like to begin by going on to the third item on my list, and that is education, which happens to be my own field. I think there are three initiatives in this budget that excite me a great deal with respect to making up for some of the shortfall in that area over the last decade or two.

First, the $900 million in a three-year capital program which will support $1.3 billion in elementary and secondary construction, to me is a very meaningful budget consideration. As we are all aware, $381 million of this has already been announced, and it is nice for my people in my jurisdiction in the region of Halton to know that approximately similar amounts will be allocated in the next two years.

Second, the $430 million over the next three years to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2, to buy more textbooks in the schools and to introduce computer technology into our schools is really very meaningful to me personally, partly because it was an election promise, and I like to see election promises fulfilled.

I would like to comment on two things with respect to this area because it affects me directly in things I have been working on for the last 28 years in the educational field. A member of the third party, in addressing this idea of reducing class sizes in grades 1 and 2, made the statement that there is absolutely no statistical evidence to support reduction in class size as being an add-in to quality education in the classroom.

Probably that statement by itself cannot be refuted, but as a person who has taught mathematics in grades 9 to 13 for 28 years, I have identified literally hundreds of students, as head of math departments in four different jurisdictions, who come into grades 9 and 10 with an ability or performance level in that subject area at the grades 3 and 4 level.

The whole idea with respect to reducing class sizes, and we are talking averages here, in grades 1 and 2 is early identification -- preventive medicine, if I may, in the educational field. If students come to me in grade 10 with a grade 3 background in mathematics, which is the case with a lot of students, it means they have tuned out systematically over the years.

I would like to go to the defence of my colleagues in the elementary panel for a moment here. By and large, most of the people who teach in the elementary panel are generalists. They lean on textbooks and other add-ins quite a bit in order to teach mathematics. They are not mathematics specialists.

This is a highly conceptualized area. If the concepts are not learned as a basis, down the road it is very difficult to teach those concepts in conjunction with sometimes as many as 30 or 35 students in a classroom who really want to be taught the grade 10 concepts.

I suggest that the members of this Legislature be aware of the fact that there is a North American and worldwide communication network called ERIC. One can go to almost any community college or any university, and by putting in key words to that program, one can come out with a listing of all of the educational research that has been done on any topic of one’ s choice.

I submit that if the member from the third party who made this allegation in the House last week did this, she would find that there would be copious quantities of research that would be available showing that if we identify learning disabilities early in grades 1 and 2, it pays off handsomely down the road in the later grades. I support that initiative wholeheartedly.

The second thing that has begun to be talked about recently because of the press is leaseback arrangements in the educational field, particularly with respect to libraries. What people are conveniently leaving out of that idea is the fact that, with respect to libraries, it is the current materials that are going to be handled in this way. Some private-enterprise people feel they can service a number of libraries more efficiently with this material, in the way that has been suggested, than with any other.

I concur with this. If anybody reads into that that the archives are going to be damaged in any way, this is not the impression I get when I talk to librarians at the university level. The archives will be maintained and added to, as they always have been.

The reason I mention it here is with respect to computer technology in the schools. When we started computer programs in the schools that I had been part of in 1976, it was because teachers in the schools saw fit to bring in their own personal computers, set up labs and get going on it. Ever since that, in the secondary schools and elementary schools of this province, we have been at least two and sometimes three and four generations of computers behind the ones which are actually being used in the business and industrial world.

I submit that if the boards of education went to the industries and worked out an arrangement whereby, on a leaseback arrangement, all of that type of equipment could be supplied to the schools, we would be turning out graduates who would be ready to compete as they must in our high-technology society. I feel very strongly about the fact that leaseback arrangements in certain situations are almost the ideal way of doing things.

The next item I would like to address has to do with road construction. I was pleased, again, to see the $1.397 billion in capital projects in this budget in that area. This includes $33 million for GO Transit extension and improvement and $100 million for northern Ontario roads.

I would like to take a moment here to highlight another thing with respect to this whole area. In my communities, they are having a tough time coming up with the matching grants, because too often, with respect to the Ministry of Transportation, when this is talked about in the press and by politicians, they talk about all of the money flowing from the centre. In fact, that is not the way it happens.

Most of the time, 50 per cent of the money has to be put up by either the local municipality and/or the region. They are doing everything they can to put their 50 per cent in place. I am pleased to say that in our region, anyway, the ministry is doing an excellent job in matching those moneys. We are getting almost everything we ask for because it is based on a three-year to five-year projection. There are no surprises there. They know exactly where the region and the municipalities would like to go.

The final thing I would like to talk about specifically here has to do with the environment. I would like to wind up with that because it has to be my number one concern. I would like to be very specific with respect to my own riding of Halton North in this regard.

When we talk about keeping the environment pure or protecting it, we are talking about keeping the water pure, the air pure and the soil pure. We like to do everything we can to ensure that because, as I said in my introductory remarks, I live on the Niagara Escarpment myself and 30 per cent of my riding is on the escarpment. The headwaters of all the main tributaries into Lake Ontario and on the other side, going down into Lake Huron and the other lakes, rise in the escarpment. I submit that if we poison the water there, we have problems in Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington and the other municipalities downriver on the other side of the escarpment.

This is why I would like to talk mainly about water today, instead of the air and soil considerations, which is another story by itself. Again, I would like to do this to point out the fact that with ordered kinds of planning, things are possible. There is no magic in these things. In my community of Acton when I took over six months ago, I was pleased to see that the Ministry of the Environment was in the process of assessing the water supplies in that area so that ordered development might take place.

You have to do that because you need the water for the houses. You also need the runoff from the sewer plants that have to be put in place when you build in areas like that. The particular creek is Black Creek. I am pleased to say that the outcome of that two-and-a-half-year study shows there is sufficient water for the ordered development the town of Acton wants -- not what anybody else wants; the town of Acton wants that.

It is the same thing in Milton. The mayor there, Gordon Krantz, was successful in talking the region of Halton into a regional urban review. It is under way. The third part of a five-part report was delivered to us just two weeks ago. It looks as if in the town of Milton we have enough water and sewage capability to go ahead by about 8,600 people, which is just fine on the ordered growth we would like in that community. That will take about two years. In that interval of time, we will no doubt put in place a long-range plan that will handle us for the next decade or two. That kind of long-range planning is affordable, is logical and gives the ordered development the town of Milton wants.

In Georgetown, we are just completing a sewage capacity increase, a $10-million addition to the plant. This is done in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment again. This is an area where, ordinarily, the municipality pays 85 per cent of the cost and the ministry pays 15 per cent of the cost; but in this case that was increased just a bit as an inducement to put in an ultraviolet system which will assure more capacity and purer water, as well as a nitrification process that does something to the ammonia that assures the same thing. We are assuring that pure water goes back into Silver Creek and into the Credit River by these initiatives.

Throughout all of these examples I have talked about, I have tried to highlight the fact that the people in my area would like capital projections on a three-to-five-year basis so they can do planning. They want operating costs designated in the same way, as is possible, because in most cases when you go board by board and agency by agency, the requests are either for reasonable increases and in a lot of cases there are actually cutbacks. They are doing a fine job at the municipalities and at the regional level and they are looking to us for some support in the areas of concern to them, and that is what I think we should develop.

This leads into the final of my three points, and that has to do with balancing the budget. We now have an accumulated debt in the province of $38.8 billion. This costs us 11 cents on every dollar. People in my riding say to me that more than in any other area, they do not want that accumulated deficit to increase any more. Mathematically, as a math teacher, it does not make any sense to me to increase it any more, so I am behind them full square on that one.

I am particularly pleased that in this budget the cash requirement has been chopped down to $473 million, a reduction of $720 million over last year. It is the lowest level it has been in 19 years, and that pleases me a great deal.

In conclusion, it is important that Ontario competes globally, as per the Premier’s Council report. We have to develop our high-tech industries. We need to put infusions of research and development money in that area so that it is possible. We must, because it is important, give sufficient operating money to our councils and to our boards and agencies and we have to ensure that it is handled in a fiscally responsible manner, both there and here. We should give a three-to-five-year projection on capital expenditures. That should become the vogue so proper planning may occur. The budget should be balanced and the accumulated debt should be reduced.

The measures taken in this budget will keep our economy buoyant into possibly a seventh, an eighth and a ninth year of sustained growth. We are just finishing off what has been six years of sustained growth in Ontario. In my riding of Halton North, this translates into a protected environment, improved roads, quality education and quality health care.

I support the Treasurer in his budget and will be opposing the amendment to his resolution. His resolution should be supported by all members of this House.

Mr. Black: I would first of all like to offer congratulations to the member for Halton North (Mr. Elliot) on an excellent speech. I was particularly interested in his comments related to education. I believe it is worth pointing out that when he comments on education he brings considerable experience to that particular field.

Last week we heard a member of the third party, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), be somewhat critical of this government for its initiatives in the field of primary education. She suggested, quite incorrectly, that those initiatives would not pay off, that it had not been proven that smaller class sizes were beneficial. The member for Halton North has today corrected that somewhat mistaken impression.

He quite correctly identifies that early identification of children with learning disabilities is best done in the primary grades, that there is ample evidence to support the fact that with an increased emphasis on primary education we can help correct some of those problems before they become ingrained in children and, therefore, the initiative of this government to provide smaller class sizes in the primary division is indeed a very sound approach.

He also quite correctly identifies that increased spending on computers is desirable. I am impressed with his suggestion that there are some significant advantages in leaseback opportunities for hardware. One of the things we need to do in talking about computer education is to ensure that hardware is kept current, and so I congratulate the member for Halton North on his insights.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to comment or ask questions? If not, the member for Halton North, if he wishes, has two minutes in which to sum up.

Mr. Elliot: I do not really think I require the two minutes to sum up. I would like to acknowledge the comments from my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) and to thank him very much for them.

I would just like to indicate that my first main speech in the Legislature was not nearly the traumatic experience I thought it was going to be. I enjoyed it very much.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is a pleasure to address this budget. From our perspective, it can only be one which is going to provide us with hope of gathering support in years to come, because the public is absolutely furious about what this Liberal government with its arrogant majority is doing to the people of this province. We are seeing the largest tax grab in the history of Ontario by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and the people of this province will not stand for it.

We are seeing a tax increase on sales taxes for the first time in over a decade, an increase from seven to eight per cent. While that may sound like a one per cent increase, in fact, it is an increase of more than 14 per cent on the sales taxes that we were paying previously. This has to have a serious detrimental effect on the economy of the province and on consumer spending, as well as being the imposition of an increase in one of the most regressive taxes we could be using here in Ontario.

In total, this will bring in to this government additional revenues of $750 million out of the pockets of ordinary working Canadians, the consumers of this province, who do not get a tax break on this item when they do not have the capital and the excess earnings to be able to put away into savings or investments. Those who spend almost all their income on consumer goods are going to pay the lion’s share of this tax.

In the area of income taxes, we are getting another tax grab from this province totalling more than $272 million as a result of the province taking a larger share of income taxes. Again, there are no accompanying measures which would see that the tax fairness that we all -- certainly in our party -- would like to see, and the people across this province would like to see, is included in revisions to the income tax scheme in this province and in the country as a whole.

Another very serious area of tax increases is in the area of gasoline taxes. We see a government with its bloated majority returning to the kinds of arrogant approaches to consumer goods that we had under the previous Conservative regime.

Tax increases on gasoline were at least held in line to no increases whatsoever during the minority government of the previous two years, but now that the Liberals have been given a majority, they are back to the old Conservative scheme of continually increasing the costs of using our transportation network, a penalty which is most severe for drivers in northern Ontario and for drivers in rural Ontario in areas where they have to use vehicles to get around, where they do not have the kinds of transportation system that maybe Metro Toronto has.

Those people are going to have to pay the freight in terms of these gasoline taxes. That tax increase is going to bring into this government an additional $139 million.

We also have many millions of dollars in increased taxes for tobacco products and alcohol products, again focused primarily on consumers, taxes that are paid predominantly by working people, and not nearly the kinds of progressive taxes we would like to see in this province. The province has done nothing in other areas of taxation instead of these tax increases across the board on working men and women in Ontario.

The New Democratic Party spoke up very strongly, as many other people in Ontario did, on the need for a speculators’ tax. With housing prices going through the roof, particularly in the Metro Toronto area, working families cannot afford their own accommodation. Those who already have accommodation are in a very luxurious position, but for the new family or for a family that is moving into an area such as Metro Toronto, the costs of a mortgage are just too high for the typical person’s income.

In fact, the incomes that members of this Legislative Assembly make would not be high enough to pay for the cost of the mortgage for an average home in the city of Toronto today. We are paid well above the average of income earners in Ontario, and still, at those income levels, one could not provide the assurances banks require to afford the mortgages that are needed in this area.

A speculators’ tax would have gone a long way to stop the flips of properties, the wanton transfer of apartment buildings back and forth between investors simply for the purpose of capital gains, which as well are tax-free. Instead, what we should be encouraging is family ownership of their own homes.

Another area of taxation that has not been addressed in this budget whatsoever is one which concerns home owners in their home communities, and that is property taxes. We are at a point today where in many communities property taxes take a bigger bite for education in those communities than for their municipal government.

Through the Conservative regime going back to the mid-1970s and under the Liberal government, government has continued to reduce its commitment to education. Our school systems are now at a point where they are getting funds of approximately 44 per cent of the cost of running our schools across this province.

This province, and this government in particular, campaigned in the last election on a plan to move back to the historical figure of 60 per cent funding of the property taxes for education. It was a recommendation that was made and endorsed as well by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which I sit on, but like many of our recommendations to the Treasurer in advance of this budget, the Treasurer has ignored it and has not taken any steps to fulfil the needs and desires of the people of this province, and in fact, the commitment he and his party made in the previous election campaign.

Instead, the only area where we are seeing tax breaks is in the corporate sector. The true colour of this government has now come to the fore in this budget, where we see tax increases across the board to individuals and new tax breaks being given to the corporate sector. We have seen over the years a shift of tax burden from the corporate sector to individuals. One would have hoped that a progressive government, which this government sometimes touts itself as, would be moving in the opposite direction, but in fact this budget did the reverse.

There are new windfall tax breaks to corporations in terms of the manufacturing investment incentive, one of the first items promoted in this new budget. On page 4, we see that government is providing the Canadian manufacturing sector with a tax write-off of 115 per cent of the cost of new manufacturing machinery and equipment. This incentive has nothing to do with whether this is going to encourage investment in Canada and spending in Canada.

This government knows that, in total, we are running a surplus, but one of the areas where we are running our largest deficit in trade is in the area of machinery and equipment. Canada runs a deficit in machinery and equipment of -- let me see if I can get the figure -- well over $10 billion. The most recent figure I have is a deficit of $13.6 billion in balance of payments on machinery and equipment.

This tax break applies not just to investment in machinery and equipment here in Ontario or here in Canada, but in fact promotes and will continue to promote investment in machinery and equipment outside of Ontario and outside of Canada. The same tax break is given for companies that make their new investments in equipment outside the country as for those inside.

Surely this is an area where we should have been encouraging Canadian content by providing investors with a break for, if necessary, spending here in Ontario. It is an area where we are in severe deficit. We all have heard the story about the need for a mining machinery industry, for a forest products machinery industry, and about the complete decline of our farm implements machinery industry.

These are products that are high value-added; they have a lot of labour involved with them. Instead, this government would rather see us continue to promote the export of raw materials, of commodity goods and let the Americans and countries around the world produce those high-value, high-technology products, and we are going to give our companies an extra break, a write-off of 115 per cent of the investment they are going to make in those products they are going to purchase from overseas.

When it comes to the items this government is proposing as the positives that are going to come out of this budget, what it is going to pay for with all these tax breaks, we have a list of initiatives in the budget. The first one mentioned here, following the manufacturing investment incentive, is technology initiatives.

Another area where the government continues to make its commitment to one area of the economy only is the high-tech sector located in southern Ontario. There is no recognition of the need to build and promote development in northern Ontario, to promote the development of new technologies that make sense for the resource sector, that will see us producing products out of our resources right here in Ontario, in northern Ontario where we need the jobs, where we still have an unemployment rate that is far too high in comparison to the rest of Ontario, an unemployment rate that is double the rate in southern Ontario.

Instead, this government to date has committed some $275 million from its $1-billion technology fund and virtually none of it has gone to northern Ontario. The major items in this promotion are the centres of excellence, which are good in concept and promote the importance of working together with our universities and building on research strength, but there is absolutely zero o