Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to Gordon Sinclair, a man whose long and distinguished career has made him a journalistic institution in our country. It was with personal sadness and a sense of loss that I received the news of his death last evening. I do not think any of the members will disagree when I say that our province and, indeed, Canada has lost one of this country's most prominent, best-known and well-respected journalists.

Those of us who regularly followed him, whether it was during his days at the Toronto Star or during his time with CFRB radio and Front Page Challenge, knew that Gordon could always be counted on to be controversial and colourful. While we could and on occasion did disagree with him, I think many of us also recognized that his studied irreverence masked a man of considerable compassion and understanding.

I will leave it to his many colleagues to chronicle Gordon's diverse contributions to his chosen field of journalism. Personally, I will miss the lively discussions we had on several occasions when I was a guest on CFRB's Let's Discuss It show. I often found his opinions provocative but also very perceptive. He was perhaps at his most perceptive when as a panellist on Front Page Challenge, as I recall, he was the only one who correctly guessed that the mystery guest that evening was the member for Brampton.

As I said to some members of the media last evening, the name Gordon Sinclair could become the classic definition of a very full life. To me Gordon Sinclair was not only a great Canadian; he was also a fair critic and a good friend, and he will be sadly missed. On behalf of the government of our province and the people of Ontario, may I offer my sincere condolences to his family and to his many friends.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I want to express our feelings of sadness on the news of the death of Gordon Sinclair. Most of us who have been in politics a number of years find it hard to believe that his career was very full indeed and that he had earned a world reputation before we ever even came on the scene.

Along with the Premier (Mr. Davis), I have on many occasions been exposed to his wit and to his sometimes rather harsh opinions about things political. I was thinking while driving in today that perhaps if I had listened to his advice a little more carefully, we might have had some different results.

I can recall more than one occasion when he came up to what was in those days the rather famous press party that used to be held on the farm in South Dumfries. He always joined in the high-spirited levity in full measure. I have always enjoyed him as an entertainer; there is no doubt about that. Although our personal relationship faded a bit as his career continued to be upwardly mobile, right until the last, I have always enjoyed the feeling that I knew him personally and appreciated his wit and candour.

When one looks at what he had achieved as a person in his careers, internationally, in radio and as an author of magazine articles and of a number of books, he was always entertaining, cogent, cutting to the heart of the matter. His life was a full one and his death was quick. We admire his accomplishments. All of us in this House and this community will miss him.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in different ways I think everyone in this House grew up with Gordon Sinclair. I can remember first meeting him almost 30 years ago when I was very small. He was a great friend of my uncle and of my uncle's grandmother, who was Scottish. They used to share many memories about Robert Burns and joke with each other.

I last saw him about a year ago when he gave me a very hard time indeed. I reminded him that his willingness to do the new and unexpected was reflected in the fact that he appeared on an interview with Stephen Lewis in the 1975 campaign in a free-time broadcast, and I said I was expecting him to continue his membership from 1975 onward. He was not that type of person.

He was somebody whose irreverence, feistiness, directness, tremendous good humour and tremendous warmth everyone who heard him appreciated, whether or not they agreed with what he happened to be saying at any one time. At a time when so many people are conforming -- so many people simply say things that are safe or they think will not offend -- it is refreshing to reflect on the career of that remarkable man, Gordon Sinclair, who always called things as he saw them, who never held back in his views on matters political, on matters religious or on matters affecting people.

He was a marvellous communicator, a marvellous entertainer and a marvellous journalist. All of us in public life have lost a great deal. We have also, if I may say so, gained from having grown up with this wonderful Canadian and from having lived with his views, his feistiness, his humour and his directness. We shall miss him, but we shall also celebrate the wonderful life he lived.

On behalf of my party, I would simply like to pass on our very warmest wishes at this time to the Sinclair family, to Mrs. Sinclair and to Gordon's children, and to say we wish them well. We are thinking of you, Gordon, wherever you may happen to be at present.

10:10 p.m.

VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks a number of articles have appeared in the media accusing our ministry of changing its policies and of reducing the level of availability of analytical, diagnostic and health services to our livestock industry. More recently, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who I regret is not here this morning, posed a question concerning this subject. In my response to the question and in further questioning and responses, I attempted to clarify the issue.

I stated that ministry policies on this subject have not changed, levels of service to livestock producers had not been reduced and no change in policies or level of service is under consideration. It appears my responses were not fully understood, and thus today I want to set the record straight and present a definitive statement on this subject.

A major objective of my ministry is to ensure that the widest, most effective range of analytical, diagnostic and health services is available to our livestock producers. Such services have been and will continue to be available from a number of sources. Major sources include my ministry, universities and the private sector.

It is a policy of my ministry to avoid the duplication of services available from other sources. It is also our policy to encourage both universities and the private sector to provide services when they are clearly the best ones to do so. In administering these policies, the welfare of the livestock population and the wellbeing of the livestock producers are, of course, our prime considerations.

The analytical and diagnostic services of my ministry are delivered to the Ontario livestock producers primarily through one or more of our six veterinary services laboratories located throughout the province. In these laboratories are well-qualified professional and technical staff who use modern analytical and diagnostic equipment.

Analytical and diagnostic results from ministry laboratories are reported to both the livestock owner and to the veterinarian involved. The producer's veterinarian makes the final diagnosis, and it is the veterinarian who recommends treatment and disease control measures.

In late 1983 and early 1984, my ministry noted that private sector laboratories were making certain services available to veterinarians and to the livestock industry and doing this so competently and successfully that there was little reason for our ministry to continue to provide these same services.

As an example of this, let us look at autogenous bacterins used to stimulate immunity to a specific disease in a herd or a flock. To produce an autogenous bacterin, the bacteria causing the disease must be isolated in pure culture from infected animals in that herd or flock. Ultimately, these bacteria are inactivated by physical or chemical means. These inactivated bacteria will then no longer cause disease, but they will in some cases stimulate immunity to the disease.

Two private laboratories are now producing autogenous bacterins; so, to avoid duplication of services, it was decided that ministry laboratories which had been making limited numbers of autogenous bacterrns would stop offering this service.

In February 1984, notice was given to all Ontario veterinarians that this service, equine pregnancy tests and wart vaccines would no longer be available from our ministry laboratories, but we would assist private laboratories in making bacterins -- setting aside suitable tissues or swabs as part of a diagnostic workup on an individual case.

Since that time, one private lab has requested that we provide them with pure cultures of pathogenic bacteria from animals submitted to our laboratories. In most instances we have refused these requests on the advice of ministry lawyers. Among the reasons for not releasing pure cultures is concern about releasing infectious materials from our laboratories, and once relinquished, our inability to assure continued quality control of any product manufactured from them.

An example has been cited of losses suffered by an individual hog farmer, and the suggestion has been made that a change in government policy was partly the cause of these losses. In response, I would point out that haemophilous pneumonia, the disease involved in this instance, has been a serious disease in this province for a number of years; that it is extremely difficult to control; that control measures include improved management practices, improved ventilation, control of crowding and the judicious use of antibiotics, and that research and practical experience have shown the use of bacterins in the face of an outbreak of this disease has little effect in preventing losses.

In this case, the diagnosis was confirmed by our ministry's Huron Park laboratory in mid-February 1984. At that time, the producer's veterinarian requested that portions of lung be provided to a private laboratory so that a bacterin could be prepared. This was done at that time.

On April 9, 1984, the producer's veterinarian contacted Dr. Jim Henry, the director of veterinary laboratory services. He asked that cultures be released because the private laboratory had been unable to culture the bacteria necessary for the production of bacterin. The veterinarian involved was determined to use a bacterin in this case.

In view of the losses suffered by the farmer, Dr. Henry called the Huron Park laboratory and directed them to release the cultures. These were then picked up by the private laboratory the next day, April 10, 1984.

Other than these instances, we have had no requests for the release of cultures.

In summary, I once again state most emphatically that, first, we have not reduced the level of diagnostic services provided by our laboratories, nor do we intend to do so. Second, we are attempting to encourage privatization of non-diagnostic functions. Third, we will provide all assistance possible in cases of serious disease outbreak, as we have done in this case. Finally, the overall level of service to livestock producers is being and will be maintained.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES BILL

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to bring to the House a bill entitled the Child and Family Services Act.

Mr. Foulds: I see the minister has his sweater back on.

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

Hon. Mr. Drea: What does the little man in the red shirt want to say?

Mr. Foulds: I said the minister has his sweater back on.

Hon. Mr. Drea: As the members know, this bill has been produced after one of the most intensive processes of consultation ever undertaken in this province. The effort and work invested by my ministry has been enormous.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable members are interested in the statement. The minister will please proceed.

Hon. Mr. Drea: To refresh their memory, we set out in 1982 to consolidate and streamline 10 existing pieces of legislation dealing with services to children and families. I will not refer to those instruments in detail on this occasion. Suffice it to say that the new act was designed to touch the lives of children served by my ministry.

We then embarked on the mammoth task of consultation. A working paper was published in October 1982. In all, 15,000 copies in English, 1,500 in French and 10,000 bilingual summaries were distributed. No fewer than 150 meetings and community forums were held. Consultations with native people and other special client groups took place.

The consultation paper generated discussion, opinion, suggestions and some 350 briefs and letters. This feedback was painstakingly reviewed and analysed by ministry staff. All those groups and individuals -- agencies, professionals, staffers and volunteers -- who work with us in the interests of children and families were encouraged to scrutinize our proposals.

We listened. We paid attention to what the community had to say individually, in groups and as organizations. As a direct result of these representations, some of the recommendations in the paper were changed, others withdrawn and still others added.

Out of that comprehensive review came the draft legislation for the Child and Family Services Act which I tabled, together with the background documents, in this House last December. The draft legislation was then subjected to a detailed, six-week study by the standing committee on social development.

Committee members listened to 45 oral presentations from groups and individuals and studied 74 written briefs. They also heard submissions by myself, my deputy minister and my staff. As a result of that diligent examination by the standing committee, further changes were made.

I would like to say a few words here about the route we followed in the preparation of this legislation. From the outset, my ministry has sought the frank and full consultation of all parties interested in this issue. We provided the standing committee not with a bill carved in stone -- or even rapidly drying concrete -- but with draft legislation still in its flexible, formative stages. We earnestly studied all the recommendations of the standing committee and incorporated many of them into the bill that is now before the House.

The driving force behind the deliberations of everyone involved in preparing this act -- and it was heartening to see this -- was the wellbeing of our children. The scrutiny of the proposed measures was carried out in a spirit of cooperation, and not of partisan competition, that reflected the importance of the legislation to children and families today and to future generations.

I believe the process of exhaustive consultation we undertook resulted in a bill that will crown Ontario's proud record in legislation to serve children and families. We have now a practical as well as a progressive consensus. We also have, in my opinion, a fine piece of legislation. It is with a sense of some urgency that I now look forward to its implementation.

10:20 a.m.

Historically, the protection and wellbeing of children has been of paramount concern to the government of Ontario. The bill now before the House will carry that tradition into the future and will serve children well in our changing, stressful times. I will not deal at length today with all the details of this legislation, but I would like to touch on a few highlights which will be of importance and interest to this House and our community.

The paramount purpose of this act, and I quote, will be "to ensure the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children." That principle is unwavering. Yet in our commitment to helping children, we must never forget that a child's family is a child's whole world. The bill appreciates this. Wherever it is possible to do so without jeopardizing the safety of the child, the bill supports the autonomy and integrity of the family unit.

In response to a recommendation of the standing committee, the bill extends the right to children to seek counselling on their own behalf. I am sure the members will appreciate how sensitive this issue can be. While the bill will make it possible for a child to speak freely and confidentially to a caring professional adult, it will also require that the counsellor explain clearly to the child the wisdom and benefits of involving the parents in the counselling program.

Of course, the role of the counsellor is limited to providing advice, not treatment. When a child, for whatever reason, must be taken into protective care, certain rights and privileges must be maintained. These are defined and guaranteed by the legislation before this House.

The bill carefully stipulates the procedures that must be followed when children in care pose a threat to themselves or to other children. At the recommendation of the standing committee, provision has been made, for example, for the specific guidelines that must be followed leading up to the secure isolation of a traumatized child. It also strictly limits the amount of time for which a child may be isolated.

Another recommendation of the standing committee dealt with the issue of adoption disclosure. Essentially, the voluntary adoption disclosure principle will remain the same, which is to say that the identity of birth parents will normally be released only with the consent of all parties concerned: the adoptive parents, the birth parents and the adopted person.

There are times, however, when this may not be practical. Accordingly, the bill provides for the disclosure of information that may be essential to the health of the adopted person or his or her children. As well, the consent of an adoptive parent to disclosure will not be necessary if that person has become mentally incompetent or has died. This is only common sense, but these are the kinds of provisions that make the bill flexible and responsive to the needs of the people it serves.

I could cite to the members any number of sections that have been recommended or endorsed by the standing committee, by children's agencies, by professionals in the field of child care and by citizens at public forums.

Suffice it to say the bill covers a spectrum of children's services and provides for the establishment of highly qualified teams of professionals to tackle the problem of child abuse on a case-by-case basis; measures to encourage and stabilize long-term foster care relationships; the provision of services to children and families in the French language where appropriate; the greater involvement of native people in the provision of services to the children in their communities, and the protection and care of children throughout Ontario.

We have before us a legislative milestone, an accomplishment in which we can all take pride. We have here a single bill that encompasses the philosophy and commitment of this province to its children. This is streamlined, modern legislation that will clarify and guide the efforts of the dedicated people working on the front lines of children's care in Ontario.

This is a bill filled with good intentions -- good intentions and nothing more until this House makes them a legislated reality. I sincerely request the House make every effort to pass this important bill before the summer recess. We have an act that is urgently needed in the field. It will make a brighter future for many of our children and will ensure a bright future for Ontario. It is a job well begun that we must now complete. It is a job we have undertaken together on behalf of the children of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL PRIORITIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer about the social priorities in his budget. As he said, the budget is not just an economic document; it is also a social document.

Why is it that the Treasurer chose to proceed in baby steps in providing subsidized day care space? I am sure he is aware of the need. He knows the waiting list in Metropolitan Toronto is 1,300. In Ottawa-Carleton, we need a minimum of 608 spaces for children waiting for subsidies. In London, we need 80 and in Sault Ste. Marie, 80. The list goes on and on in virtually every community in this province. He has provided 1,500 spaces.

Why has the Treasurer chosen not to make that a greater priority in his budget?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of day care spaces has been given an extreme amount of attention by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) as well as the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

It was decided to take what has been a rather unusual step in terms of budgets, which generally deal with the economic circumstances for the coming year and, for the first time in some time, we saw moneys applied to day care; a lot of money, $5 million almost, for 1,500 spaces. There are not many people who would suggest that is not an extraordinary addition. It will not solve the problem entirely, but it is an important addition.

I would also remind the honourable member that important initiatives were taken under the Canada assistance plan programs. We will be providing special day care opportunities to a number of single mothers on welfare who will be getting additional day care opportunities and additional day care services provided to them through that program. That would be in addition to the 1,500 spaces we are providing.

Mr. Peterson: Let me ask the Treasurer for his explanation on another social priority, certainly in our view. That is --

The Deputy Speaker: Is this a new question?

Mr. Peterson: I was asking about social policy priorities. I am sure you remember, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to figure out how compassionate he really is.

Another area of great social need is the need for assisted housing in this province. I am sure the minister is aware of the figures of need and the waiting list for municipal nonprofit housing. In Peel, there are 3,000 on the list for Ontario Housing; in Toronto, 5,000 families; in Metropolitan Toronto, 3,000 seniors, and in Ottawa, 1,600 families and seniors. More than 30,000 families and individuals on waiting lists need assisted housing in this province.

The Treasurer knows that construction programs would be job-intensive and create jobs and go some way towards solving the unemployment problem. Why is it that he chose only to reannounce an old program of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett)?

We will have, on average, 640 units a year across the province for the next five years. It does not even go a tiny way towards addressing the real need. Why did he choose virtually to ignore that important area where government has to take the lead?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, I am not going to agree that providing 3,200 additional families with rent-geared-to-income units amounts to ignoring the problem.

Mr. Rae: Finish the sentence. It will be over five years.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Treasurer is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The reason the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has to take that approach is that, let us face it, he was planning to take an approach that said this budget raised taxes and --

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me finish the answer.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order. The minister is answering the question.

Mr. Peterson: He is imputing motives. I thought that was not allowed in this House. He has drafted an answer to a question, and regardless of what the question is in this House, we hear the answer repeated time after time. He is launching a defence of his budget, which is his prerogative, but it is so feeble and so miserable. It is the same answer to every single question. I am asking him specific questions. Exercise your prerogative as the presiding officer --

The Deputy Speaker: This is a not a point of privilege and the honourable member knows it. The minister can answer the question and is accountable for the answer. The minister can proceed.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The reason the answers sound somewhat familiar is that the question the opposition is left with after this very good budget is, "Why did you not do more?" That is the traditional knee-jerk opposition approach. No matter what governments do, the members opposite will always say, "That is nice, but do more."

With regard to whether we should have gone further than this important addition of 3,200 units over five years, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I have discussed various options for assisting that and other problems.

One of the important things we learned during the prebudget consultations was that the housing industry disagreed very fundamentally with the member's predictions with regard to housing starts for this coming year. The most negative and pessimistic prediction from the housing industry was that, instead of 58,000 units, we may end up with 54,000 units. But in essence they were saying to us, unusually, that they really did not need stimulation for housing construction this year to create jobs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We are talking about socially assisted housing.

Mr. Wrye: Do you not even understand the difference?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, if the honourable member was paying attention, his leader said housing construction would also help to create jobs. The response was, of course, that the housing industry has indicated it will be creating a lot of jobs and it does not need stimulation to create employment in the housing sector.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer continues to put the flim back in flim-flam.

Is it not a fact that the Treasurer's miserly 640 units a year, as he says, are not new units at all, that in fact the 640 items will be subsidized spaces in existing apartments? Is it not a fact that there is not one new unit of affordable housing to be constructed out of the budget he announced earlier this week? Is it not a fact that no new housing is going to be built in this province as a result of the budget he announced on Tuesday?

Why does he not bring in a separate provincial housing supply program to build affordable housing to deal with the housing crisis in cities such as Toronto, Sudbury, Hamilton or Ottawa -- in fact, all the major cities in this province that have a housing crisis?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we decided that for the time being -- that is, through this budget period -- the most urgent priority if we were going to do anything in the housing area was twofold. The first was not to increase taxes, so as not to exacerbate a potential problem with respect to people being able to buy new homes, and not to borrow more money -- which I might say, as the member's party has indicated, would only push up interest rates and be inflationary -- but rather to continue the economic climate in which 58,000 new homes will be built and purchased this year.

Second, if we were going to do something in the housing area, my colleague and I determined it should be to ensure that housing that is available will indeed be used for rent-geared-to-income housing. I have listened to the honourable member's speeches on housing over the past time, and I have heard him say quite clearly one of the problems is that we are not taking up enough of the units under the Canada rental supply program of the federal government in order to provide rent-geared-to-income accommodation. Therefore, in response to those who have said we have to have more rent-geared-to-income housing, this was the decision we made at this time and it is, for this period, eminently the right one.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer about one other aspect of the social policy enunciated in this budget. I raised this matter with his colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) yesterday.

The Treasurer has suggested we always come and complain that he should have done more. In the case of the disabled in this province he did nothing. Can the Treasurer please tell this House why this government, along with the government of Canada, would see a need to provide more money for the single elderly and to bring them at the end of this year up to $682 a month?

When the 55,600 single disabled of Ontario look for some assistance from this government to get them out of the abject poverty in which they live, in enunciating the social policies for the disabled of this province, why is there not a dime's worth of help other than the minor help that was promised in accommodation and a number of other matters? Why did he not act to redress that terrible wrong and put more money into the pockets of those who desperately need it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let us be fair with the budget and the disabled. These are words the honourable member would not want to use since they cast away the important steps we have taken in areas such as attendant care for many disabled. These words cast that aside as if it were miserly, insignificant or minor. The member would want to reflect on those remarks and withdraw them.

Second, through the leadership provided by this government, there is now a review of the system of support for the disabled through the Canada pension plan system. This is the right approach since, as pointed out in our extensive paper on pensions in Canada, the disabled are in a position of getting assistance from a variety of unco-ordinated sources. In order to rationalize the system and be sure all disabled are getting an appropriate amount of assistance, a great deal of co-ordination is required.

In the meantime, this government, and only this government, has been saying we should not wait until that entire review is completed, but adjustments should be made immediately through the CPP to look after the disabled. That is a position we have put forward. It is eminently the right position, and we have been the leaders in Canada in suggesting that CPP changes be made to look after the disabled. That is eminently the right approach.

Mr. Peterson: They are the leaders in Canada in weaseling out of their responsibility. That is what they are the leader of in Canada. We were trying to get the measure of the compassion in the budget which they talk about but do not reveal.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with his second question.

ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Treasurer about the environmental programs as articulated in the budget. He will be aware this is the second year in a row there have been major cuts in environmental spending by this government, an indication it does not take that area very senously or that the minister was not able to persuade the Treasurer it is an important area for leadership by the government.

Why has the government cut its commitment to spending in that area when the list of real and immediate needs in Ontario is virtually endless? I will give the Treasurer a list of those urgent and immediate needs if he would like to hear them. Why is the government cutting its environmental spending when it is job-intensive and helps solve problems that will have to be solved sooner or later? Why not solve them now rather than deferring these problems for some future group to pay for and solve?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I guess this will be about the seventh or eighth time this week the Conference Board of Canada and I have disappointed the member, but I am going to have to do it again. In terms of its actual operating moneys, the budget for the Ministry of the Environment will be increased by at least $11 million this year. There will not be a decrease.

The reason the figures appear that way is because of a write-off which increased the figures by $30 million on a one-time-only basis last year since we transferred assets, in most cases water treatment and waste control facilities, to municipalities. As we transfer those assets, they appear as a one-time-only expenditure, inflating last year's figure by $30 million. The actual base of the Ministry of the Environment will show that, in order to deal with the priorities the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, there was no decrease but an $11-million increase.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: Here we have an admission from the Treasurer that figures lie. That is what he is telling us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, that the member does not do his research.

Mr. Peterson: Look at the two-year history.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was all there.

Mr. Peterson: Even though it came in over budget, it was down last year and it is down again this year over last year. Those are the realities.

How is the Treasurer going to address the problems of the polluted beaches in Toronto this year when it is recognized that major capital expenditures are going to have to be undertaken? How did he provide for those in his budget? How is he going to provide for assistance in cleaning up the acid rain in this province? His colleague is musing that public moneys may have to be involved in that discussion. What are his commitments to the beaches and to cutting down acid rain? What are his commitments to the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand the member's problem, but to answer that desperate supplementary question --

Mr. Kerrio: Besides trying to get elected as leader.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The members should respect the right of the member to hear the answer to the question he asked.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is very difficult.

The Deputy Speaker: Just contain yourselves.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has been a difficult week for the members. I understand that.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the funding has been provided in the budget of the Ministry of the Environment to look after those problems in accordance with what we determine is needed this year. As to the list the member has, which he wanted to read this morning, I can assure him there is an $11-million increase in the Ministry of the Environment's budget to look after those problems as we anticipate them at this time for this year.

Mr. Peterson: What is the Treasurer going to do for the needs in Stoney Creek where there has been a request? What is he going to do for the needs in the Haldimand-Norfolk region where there has been a request for a major project for sewage treatment? What is he going to do for Port Whitby? Is he going to respond to those needs or is he going to let them come under his knife? When is he going to address those real environmental problems?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member did hear the previous answer, which was that there have been no cuts in the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. Therefore, it might be improper for the member to suggest there is a knife being taken to the projects he has on his list. There is an $11-million increase, not a decrease in the Ministry of the Environment budget.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps talking about "one time only" almost as if he has taken instructions in economics from Honest Ed. How does he explain the fact that in 1981-82 the budget of the Ministry of the Environment was $345 million and it is now $331 million? Was that one time only in 1981-82, one time only in 1982-83 or one time only in 1983-84? Which was it? When was the one time only?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I might offer this to the leader who has had to resort to silly little quotes this week. If he thinks I got my economics from Honest Ed, it is quite clear that Honest Ed is providing better courses in economics than Geneva.

His colleagues can feel free to drop into the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. Notwithstanding the fact that they are estimates for the current year, the members can chat about estimates for previous years. I am here this morning to speak about what we have planned for next year and what kind of increases we have accommodated. The fact is that in the Ministry of the Environment we have accommodated an $11-million increase for next year.

FUNDING OF MINISTRIES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, speaking of cuts in the budgets of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Energy, I wonder if the minister can explain why, for the second year in a row, the budget of the Ministry of Energy has been cut in the important areas of renewable energy, energy conservation and alternative energy. At a time when Ontario Hydro's budget is expanding willy-nilly, when Hydro is spending $3.4 million on advertising for the "talking" furnace, can he explain why there has been a $3-million reduction in the budget of the Ministry of Energy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, before I do so and again give an answer that is disappointing to the honourable member, let me say that, on this ministry-by-ministry exercise, the estimates process is in place and his critics can go to those estimates and --

Mr. Martel: Oh, shut up and answer the question. We do not need a lecture. We know the estimates are coming.

The Deputy Speaker: Members, last Friday we had this kind of language. You know the rules do not permit this kind of inflammatory language. If one starts it, it provokes it from the other side. We have permitted somewhat of a balancing of that, but let us for the remainder of the question period just remember that it does nothing for the decorum of the House and avoid it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Treasurer has no respect for anybody.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do not need any advice on respect when the member's House leader tells us to shut up when we are trying to answer a serious question.

Mr. Martel: Oh, get off it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What a supercilious ass.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will answer the question and ask for them not to listen but just to be polite for a moment.

The ministry-by-ministry estimates process is set up for the member to review these. As I indicated, there is no cut in services as a result of the budget we brought in on Tuesday.

Mr. Rae: It is a miracle.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree with the member; it is a miracle.

To answer the member's question with regard to the Ministry of Energy -- and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) is here -- its budget is lower by $3 million. Of that $3 million, $2.3 million relates to lower transfer payments to the Ontario Energy Corp. because of lower interest payments on the Suncor purchase.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but $2.3 million less this year. That is the budget cut he is complaining about.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, how many hundred million is that going to cost? The Treasurer is the chief bookkeeper of this province. He drafted this document; I did not draft it. Since he wants to fudge the cut over last year, how does he explain the fact that the Ministry of the Environment was cut from $341 million actual two years ago to $312 million this year, a dramatic cut over a two-year period? Let him fool around with his accounting last year.

How does the Treasurer account for that steady decline in the priorities of his government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I say first that it is not my government; it is the Premier's (Mr. Davis) government and it will be for a long time.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Might I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it will never be his government.

The Deputy Speaker: Will you answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Second, for those who were listening, just a mere moment ago I indicated in response to precisely the same question from the leader of the New Democratic Party that those kinds of questions are properly asked of my colleague.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer is the budget chief.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right, I am the budget chief for 1984-85 and I am here to say to the member that the Ministry of the Environment, no matter how many times he comes back at it, has an $11-million increase in the budget I presented on Tuesday, and that is the budget I am here to answer for this Friday, not the 1982 budget.

Mr. Rae: What the Treasurer is saying is that he does the cutting and he has to ask --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the supplementary, please?

Mr. Rae: -- his colleagues to do the answering with respect to where the cuts are coming. That is what he is saying. If the Treasurer is going to do the cutting, surely he is the one who also has to do the answering.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer specifically how Ontario is going to be able to keep up with the need to improve the environment with respect to air and the quality of water.

Just to give him one example, the Ministry of the Environment is spending $1 million on carbon filtration at the experimental plant at Niagara Falls, while the city of Cincinnati is spending $40 million to improve its water treatment system. Is the Treasurer really satisfied with a situation in which Ontario is falling behind Cincinnati? Does he not realize that this is what happens when he cuts budgets?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Really it comes back to a very important point. The Ministry of the Environment will get an $11-million increase this year. That is the fact. If the member wants to discuss with my colleagues the priorities this ministry sets and how it is going to use that new, additional money this coming year, he should feel free to do so. My job is to determine how much we should spend government-wide in this coming year. My colleagues have assured me with respect to the amounts allocated to them that (a) they are happy with them, (b) they will accommodate some new priorities, and (c) they will involve no cuts in services.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my new question is also to the Treasurer. I was hoping to ask it of the Premier (Mr. Davis) but I understand he will not be back in question period this morning.

The Treasurer may recall that in 1977 Premier Davis, as he then was and as the Treasurer rightly pointed out this morning still is, said: "Reducing the municipal tax burden on senior citizens is a commitment of the government. We are also committed to working towards the ultimate elimination of this particular tax for the majority of Ontario's senior citizens." That was the solemn commitment made by the Premier in 1977 to the senior citizens of this province.

How does the Treasurer feel about the fact that the real value of the property tax credit has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years, and how does he feel about the fact that an ever-declining number of senior citizens have managed to offset three quarters of their tax bill with the maximum grant assistance that is available? We are moving dramatically in the opposite direction from the commitment the Premier made in 1977. How does the Treasurer feel about the fact that his budget means the Premier is breaking his promise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens in this province, as the honourable member may know but not acknowledge, still remain the best-treated and best-looked-after in the nation.

Mr. Foulds: In spite of your betrayal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is just silliness.

The fact is, while we would have liked to have moved more quickly in a number of areas, one of the more important things to do for our people is to make sure that in this province they are paying, for example, about the lowest rate of retail sales tax in the country. On this side of the House we believe that ensuring that we do not have deficits that are out of control and ensuring that we do not tax our people with one hand and pretend to give them something with the other is the way government should operate.

We could reorganize the system, but let us face it, if we speeded up the process, there would have to be other adjustments or increased deficits. Some of those other adjustments, one way or the other, would end up being borne by the people the member is pretending to help. By and large, so long as those senior citizens are very well treated in this province, and they are, and we continue to make progress over the broad range of programs, I deduce that our senior citizens in this province not only are well treated but also know they are well treated.

Mr. Rae: I wonder if the Treasurer would like to try answering just one question. The Premier made a promise in 1977 that had two parts to it. The Treasurer can listen to the promise because it is important. This is what happened in 1977, an election year. He said he was "committed to reducing the municipal tax burden on senior citizens," a very specific promise, and that he was "working towards the ultimate elimination of this particular tax for the majority of Ontario's senior citizens."

Let us take the first part of that promise and ask the Treasurer this question. How does he explain the fact that property taxes in Brampton, on average, went up from $920 in 1980 to $1,200 in 1984? That is from a Royal Trust survey. That shows a dramatic or significant increase in the property tax burden on senior citizens living in the Premier's own constituency of Brampton.

How does the Treasurer explain the fact that the value of the tax credit has not gone up in any way to reflect the increase in property taxes and the burden falling on those citizens? How does he explain the fact that this means the Premier has broken his promise when he said he was going to "reduce the municipal tax burden on senior citizens"? He has not reduced the municipal tax burden. Why has he not reduced the municipal tax burden?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are two things we should point out. First, with regard to the ability of our senior citizens to make some of those payments, the guaranteed annual income system payments will be up by 22.7 per cent, almost 23 per cent, over 1983. Even the member would acknowledge that is an important and significant increase which will increase the capability of those people to pay property tax increases.

Second, in the light of the member's concern about the property tax growth, I know he will be supportive of the budget where it refers to our concern about the increase in property taxes throughout the province. I know he will stand with us when we say to municipalities that they have to try to hold the line on direct operating expenses, as we have done in this government.

I know he will be helpful in encouraging municipalities to operate in such a way that their wage settlements to their employees do not exceed five per cent. Because of his concern for the tax problems and the mill rate increases imposed on senior citizens, I know he will stand with us in fighting wage settlements in excess of five per cent and mill rates in excess of five per cent. I know I can count on the member.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the Treasurer's last answer. Why is he issuing these threats to the municipalities and the boards of education in this province in attempting to shift the blame to locally elected officials?

His government's commitment to education, for instance, has since 1975 gone from over 61 per cent of the cost of education being borne by the province to less than 49 per cent in the past year. The government provides a stipulation for boards of education that they must become involved in mandatory programs such as special education. It insists that municipalities undertake special pollution abatement works. It insists that municipalities meet the costs of police services over which they have no direct control. It has frozen the per capita grant, for instance, to libraries. When the Treasurer is underfunding local governments, why is he then turning around and blaming them for an increase in local property taxes?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the member will always say we are underfunding and, at the same time, he will always --

Mr. Bradley: That is what they are saying.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the member not saying we are underfunding?

Mr. Bradley: I am relaying their feelings to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I see. The member will not be counted on either side of that issue.

Mr. Bradley: I am with them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now the member has decided we are underfunding them. I will give him a few more minutes so he can decide where he wants to end up on the issue. Wherever the member wants to end up on that issue, might I only say --

Mr. Kerrio: You answer the questions; we just ask them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because the member cannot answer them; he is right.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat for a moment? We talked about municipalities but you injected boards of education in your supplementary. We permitted it. The Treasurer is answering, so let us get the answer and go back to the final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Whatever the member thinks about whether we are underfunding or not underfunding, or whether he agrees with them or does not agree with them, let me say there is one thing that is evident, and that is the direct operating expenses of municipalities and school boards are increasing by more than five per cent this year.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are increasing by more than five per cent this year. We in this government decided we should hold our own direct operating expenses to last year's level, that is, a zero per cent increase.

The total cost of the increase to municipalities and school boards across this province is $200 million. What we cannot deny is if that were cut, not to last year's level but just in half, that would save property taxpayers across this province $100 million. We think that would be a modest and good goal for municipalities to seek because that would address all, or almost all, the concerns we all share about the cost that elderly people are facing in keeping their homes.

I know the member will join me in saying we should expect the same level of determination from municipalities in trying to keep their expenses down rather than increasing mill rates. That is an important goal, and we are not about to shirk our responsibility. As unpopular as I know it will be with municipal governments, I think it is appropriate to expect them to hold the line, not even as much as this government but perhaps half as much with, say, $100 million.

11 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer tell us whether the promise made in 1977 by the Premier (Mr. Davis) was a one-time-only promise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have had the opportunity to make promises that improve the circumstances and to deliver on those now for only 41 years. It was not a one-time-only promise. We will have the opportunity to make and keep that promise again; maybe sooner, maybe later, but we will be back.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure he is aware that this is May 18, the last day he and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) have to announce an assistance program for the red meat industry before the Ontario Federation of Agriculture calls for their resignation.

The Treasurer may recall a meeting he had with farmers last October when he stated: "We are not going to let the beef industry die. We are not going to let any part of the agricultural industry die." On November 30 he said: "We simply cannot accept a situation in which efficient and productive farmers are forced to abandon their operations because they are caught in the squeeze of high input costs and low commodity prices."

How does the Treasurer intend to live up to these promises when in the budget his commitment to the agricultural industry is no more than a rehash of old promises and previous commitments and totally ignores the urgent need of farmers in severe financial difficulties?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the farming community over the past period of time, as I have spoken at length with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food and as I have listened to the concerns expressed from the honourable member's side of the House, it has seemed to me that the major and overriding concern of all farmers is the cost of credit. If we could provide an appropriate underpinning to that major problem, most of the other concerns would be greatly alleviated.

In an attempt to do that, we chose in this budget to address the fundamental problem; that is, instead of seeking to enter another patchwork of programs to try to fix certain parts of the industry, it was our determination that my colleague and I should spend some time working out an agribond plan that would work in Ontario and across Canada.

As I know the member understands, even if his colleagues may not, the major responsibility in terms of farm credit is and always has been at the federal level. The member will acknowledge that, I know.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh yes, he will.

In doing this budget, therefore, we concluded that the most important thing we could do for the farming community was to say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, "You have our support financially and policywise to go to the federal government and say that Ontario is ready, willing and funded to proceed with an agribond program."

I trust the member will speak to his federal colleagues, who form the only stumbling block now to having an agribond program for the farmers of Ontario, a program put together by our Minister of Agriculture and Food. We in this province are in the circumstance of saying, "We have the only agribond proposal that is supported not only by the Minister of Agriculture and Food but also by the Treasurer."

With that combination, the only blockage to agribond programs for all the farmers the member speaks for is the government that has the primary responsibility for farm credit, and that is the federal government. That was a very important thing we did. Let us see whether the federal government will come through on its undertaking, shall we call it.

Mr. McKessock: The agribond issue was an Ontario Federation of Agriculture issue and a federal issue, and the minister now wants to tag along on it.

As the Treasurer may be aware, the OFA in its reaction to the so-called substantial assistance to the farming community in transition stated that the provincial budget blatantly ignores the immediate critical need of the farm sector and that this budget has no news as far as agriculture is concerned.

Does the minister understand that his so-called substantial commitment is nonexistent and that his prebudget hearings at which farm groups made specific suggestions to him are simply charades? Will he agree that the Minister of Agriculture and Food's argument against providing emergency assistance to help our farmers on the ground that Ontario would be accused of bargaining in bad faith on a tripartite stabilization program is nothing more than an excuse for inaction?

Other provinces are helping their farmers. Saskatchewan introduced a seven-point assistance program in its budget just a month ago, including a livestock investment tax credit for farmers that will pay $25 per head for cattle, $3 for hogs and $2 for lambs.

The Deputy Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. McKessock: It is exciting to see what a change in government has done for the farmers in Saskatchewan. I am sure that is what is needed in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: That is a statement. We are looking for a question here.

Mr. McKessock: The minister has been taking Ontario farmers for a ride and they have given him a free lunch. When is he going to start paying his share --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will do my best to answer that speech. First, I think the member pointed out that the agribond was a proposal of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. He accused me of endorsing that program. I accept.

Mr. McKessock: It is a federal program. The minister wants to tag along so he can blame it on the feds if it does not come through.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thank the member for helping the point I was making in my first reply, that this program is properly a federal one. His friends in the OFA and his friends in Mr. Whelan's office will tell him they expect provincial participation to mount the agribond program --

Mr. McKessock: Take a look at Saskatchewan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me finish. I know this is not typed out for the member. Since this is an OFA-federal government program, that attests to the importance of this government saying clearly in its budget that for our part, yes, we accept participation in an agribond program.

Mr. McKessock: Thank you very much. Let us get on with it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I trust the member will report to the federal government that Ontario is ready, funded and willing to go with the agribond and that the OFA has succeeded in getting this government to agree that an agribond proposal is the right way to go.

Mr. McKessock: Now back to the red meat industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Back to the red meat question.

As the member knows, my colleague has been receiving a great deal of support from that sector for his courageous proposals.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is why they are calling for his resignation. If they liked him any better, they would string him up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have here a letter from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. I trust the member has one or two members of the cattlemen's association in his fine area.

Mr. McKessock: Not as many as we had a while ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In response to the member's request for some subsidy payments, I will quote directly from the letter: "We have been sufficiently close to the negotiations," led by my colleague "to know that the kind of payment you are requesting will destroy any hope of achieving tripartite stabilization."

Mr. McKessock: You know Saskatchewan can do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member disagrees with the statement I have just read, he should call the cattlemen's association, which wrote this letter to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture supporting the position of this government.

Mr. McKessock: How come Saskatchewan can do it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member disagrees with the position I have just read, I am sure the cattlemen's association will be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer not realize the call for resignation had nothing to do with federal programs? The Ontario Federation of Agriculture was calling for the resignation of the Treasurer and of the Minister of Agriculture and Food because this government did not do anything, because it did not implement the red meat program.

Does the Treasurer realize it is very easy for him to support a federal program that is going to cost the province nothing or very little? It is easy for him to support the funding of the agribond.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

11:10a.m.

Mr. Swart: Will the Treasurer live up to his responsibility and do something like the other provinces have done with regard to red meat stabilitization and with regard to long-and short-term funding for the agricultural community?

The Treasurer talks about not wanting to put another patch on the patchwork quilt. There is only one big hole in that patchwork quilt of programs by the provinces, and that is that the province of Ontario has done nothing. Let us plug that hole and do something here.

Mr. Gillies: Good speech. Was there a question in there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not think there was, frankly.

Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the honourable member that, as always when governments try to show some leadership, there will be those who are worried and nervous about change. It does take some courage to mount the steps my colleague has mounted. None the less, it is encouraging to note that in spite of that call for our resignations, which upon careful reflection we have decided to reject, the corn producers' association has disavowed and disagreed with the OFA resolution. The cattlemen's association also has rejected that suggestion, as has the sheep association. I might say personally that I was delighted to receive the endorsement of the pork association.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising from statements in his letter to me in response to the questions I raised in the House on May 8 regarding the need for compensation of victims of asbestos-related laryngeal cancer at Bendix Inc. in Windsor.

Since the minister acknowledges in his letter the serious criticisms made of the deficiencies in the Finkelstein study, footnoted in the commission's report, does he find it acceptable that the commission would use this study as additional evidence for its assertion that workers exposed to asbestos in friction materials operations face risks that are marginal, without even mentioning the scientific controversy surrounding the study?

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge that the study by Dr. Berry and Dr. Newhouse in Derbyshire, England, observed mortality after only 10 years from first exposure, a remarkably short period of time in which many latent effects of exposure to asbestos would not have become apparent?

Why does the commission rely on such blatantly inadequate studies to decide that laryngeal cancer is unlikely related to asbestos exposure?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that question could more appropriately be responded to by the authors of the commission report.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to ask the minister a supplementary with regard to what the minister is going to do in response to the commission's report.

Despite the deficiencies in the Finkelstein study, it has been pointed out by Dr. Mike Silverstein of the United Auto Workers in Detroit that in that study there are more than 11 times the predicted number of deaths from laryngeal cancer, a type of cancer known to be associated with asbestos exposure, and there is a strong and definite possibility there is enormous asbestos effect in this group of people working with friction materials such as those at Bendix.

If that is the case, is the minister prepared now to do what the commission did not do and to indicate clearly that this government will direct the Workmen's Compensation Board to bend over backwards to ensure there will be compensation benefits for the families of the victims of laryngeal cancer at places like Bendix and that all the workers who have been exposed will be compensated?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You really did exceed the bounds of the supplementary, but if the minister has a response, I will allow it.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would just like to read two short passages from the letter of May 14 to my friend opposite, to which he has referred.

At one point in the letter I say, "Turning to the basis of the commission's conclusions concerning work exposures to asbestos in factories manufacturing friction materials, I am certain you can appreciate that beyond what appears in the report, only the commission can elaborate on the reasons for its conclusions." That was the reason for my first answer to his question this morning.

I would like to go further, though, because he refers to Dr. Finkelstein's paper. I say in that same letter, "It appears from the report, however, that the commission reviewed a study by Mr. Berry and Dr. Newhouse, of a friction material factory in Derbyshire, England, and another study by Dr. A. D. MacDonald of a Connecticut, USA, factory in considering the health risks from asbestos and friction material manufacturing."

Here is the key point. "The reference to Dr. Finkelstein's paper appeared in a footnote and served as only a supplemental reference. The commission noted in the footnote that the paper was a draft."

In response to the last question asked by the honourable member as to the Workers' Compensation Board, I am quite confident the WCB will address the concerns he has expressed on behalf of the workers.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to a report in yesterday's Toronto Sun.

I would like to ask the minister whether the request by the well-publicized New Democrat, Mr. Spencer, for a 99 per cent rent increase has been withdrawn from the Residential Tenancy Commission, since an offer to sell to the tenants for a price higher than paid by him has reportedly been made?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to that question, but I will be pleased to obtain the information and advise the honourable member.

If the member wishes some additional comments on the second part of the question with respect to the sale itself, that is really a family squabble in the New Democratic Party and they will have to resolve that themselves.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) asked why it took the Social Assistance Review Board 90 days to reach a decision in the case of Waruna Hoelke.

There appear to have been two factors, caused in part by the complexity of the case which led to the board overrunning its regulated time of reaching a decision in 61 days. The first was the lengthy time taken by the board members to complete their record of hearing. The second was the raising of complex legal questions, which caused the board to refer the case to Mr. Harold Fulton, its solicitor, for his review.

Although I recognize this was a complicated case, I am not satisfied the record of hearing was completed as quickly as it could have been. In that regard, I have written the chairman of the Social Assistance Review Board the following letter:

"A recent question in the Legislature has resulted in my review of the case of Mr. Waruna Paul Hoelke. I will not go into the details of the timing and events with respect to the case, but there appears to have been an unwarranted delay caused by the tardiness of some board members in submitting a completed record of hearing.

"If this had been an isolated incident, I might not be writing in this regard, but we are both aware that there have been other occasions where members of the board have caused unwarranted delays.

"You will recognize that I, as Minister of Community and Social Services, am responsible to the Legislature for the Social Assistance Review Board. This responsibility is an arm's-length arrangement with respect to the operation of the board's activities so as not to interfere with their decision-making. However, as minister, I do believe that disciplinary action may be required when inordinate delays are caused or generated by members in rendering their decisions.

"I would request that you ensure that in each and every instance members complete the record of hearing no later than the Monday following the holding of the hearing. I therefore ask you to provide me with the schedule of disciplinary action you propose to take in the event that in the future board members do not carry out their duties with due dispatch."

It is signed by me. I have sent the honourable member a copy of the letter.

I am satisfied that Mr. Fulton proceeded as promptly as possible in rendering legal advice. The member is totally wrong in his allegations about fees of $1,000 a day. Mr. Fulton's fees in this matter were $180. I would suggest the member should apologize for remarks he made concerning the board's legal counsel.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in responding, I first thank the minister for the action he has taken; I appreciate it. This is the first time this kind of action has taken place over the delays at the board, and I am very pleased to see it.

Second, if I was incorrect about the amount of money being paid to lawyers on decisions, I apologize for that. In the estimates I will be asking exactly how much money is going to ministry legal people working on these cases and the amount being paid to outside firms for legal decisions.

Concerning the decision, of which I now have a copy, would the minister not agree that besides the problems of the delays in filing answers, the major problem we have now with learning disability cases coming under vocational rehabilitation is the regulation that has been brought in under 7(a), subsection 2(a), under which, as the minister knows, it is now possible for the Social Assistance Review Board to say as it does in this ruling that it does not have the right to make a decision about whether a child can be served appropriately by a board unless the board of education indicates it cannot provide a service? That therefore takes away its capacity to be a quasi-judicial board making decisions on the merit of a case. The school board can therefore --

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is part of the question.

Does the minister not agree this regulation now takes away the judicial powers of the board? It will no longer hear the case on the merits but will allow a school board to say in advance, "We can provide," and then I and other people acting as advocates for learning disabled kids have no right to argue the merits of whether that board can deal with it. As a result of a technicality, this kid is now not able to attend an appropriate school. That is a very serious situation.

The Deputy Speaker: I think we have a question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear because of the flow of Hansard today that the minister does not even know what the decision was, and he should not know. The honourable member knows what the decision was because he acted in capacity in this case.

With regard to that regulation, looking at it in the abstract and not in connection with this case, the fundamental proposition, put more simply, would be that when the board of education says it is providing the education, the quality or degree of education cannot be made a question before the board. Even though there is only about a year of this type of procedure left since Bill 82 will end it, that matter gives me a bit of concern.

Although I suppose one of the courses might be to say there are diminishing returns and we probably have only one more round of people coming before the board, or at least next year's cases coming before the board, I want to take a look at that, perhaps in discussion with two of my colleagues, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as chief law officer of the crown and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). I doubt we will be able to come to a decision by the end of the session but I will reply to the member as soon as possible over the summer.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer if he would clarify two matters pertaining to the budget as it relates to agriculture. First, the comment which has been widely repeated in the agricultural community about the huge infusion of new money into the agricultural budget really amounts to only $5 million more than was spent by that ministry in 1982-83. Surely the minister is not going to give us the response that a one-time-only expenditure accounts for the fact we are getting only one per cent more than we were getting in 1982.

In the same vein, the fact is there are no new taxes, but the imposition of an ad valorem tax plus a superimposition of a sales tax on tobacco is netting an additional $40 million in tobacco tax this year over last year. That is not a one-time-only event. That additional $40 million is collected because of the imposition of the seven per cent sales tax on the tax.

Will the Treasurer explain to my constituents why those two anomalies still perpetuate what they consider to be an unfair aspect of this budget and previous budgets?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness we really cannot be accused of doing anything unfair to the tobacco farmers in this budget since, having met with them an extraordinary number of times, if there was one clear message they gave me it was to have no new taxes on tobacco products this year.

Mr. Nixon: There is $40 million more extracted. Who are you kidding about this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don't you kid about it. There were no new tobacco taxes.

Mr. Nixon: You must think they are stupid.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member must not have met with them as often as I did, because they were very clear and direct: "Do not increase the retail sales tax. Do not increase the tobacco tax rate." Those were their two major requests. We met both of their requests; we gave them exactly what they requested.

Mr. Nixon: You are taking an extra $40 million.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You folks are out of touch. I do not understand why the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will not agree that this budget did not change the tax rate.

Mr. Nixon: You do not have to change the tax rate.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know that after the change of government in Ottawa, even the change of administration, they will want to review the Peters report, which the tobacco industry participated in; and, as I told the industry, I will be watching the results of that report with regard to the concern about the escalation of taxes.

We raised it quite clearly with them; as the member knows, I raised it several months ago. What they asked for this year was no tax increase while we sort out the Peters report. That is exactly what they got. They got exactly what they asked for.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Eaton moves that the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to sit Tuesday afternoon, May 22, after routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Elgie, first reading of Bill 77, An Act respecting the Protection and Wellbeing of Children and their Families.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on what has been called and is increasingly being called, as we begin to discuss the details of the budget, a document of deception. That is an appropriate title to be used by those of us who went into the budget lockup on Tuesday.

As one began to read quickly through the budget, at first glance it looked like it had some substance. There were a lot of words and a lot of proposals that appeared to address social issues and appeared to address the most important economic and social issue: the terrible unemployment of our youth. As we began to cut away the rhetoric of the budget, we found the rhetoric was in no way matched by any reality of new initiative or new vision from this government.

I know Mr. Speaker would agree that the only transformation in this budget is not an economic transformation in this province, but is a transformation of names and a recycling of old programs under new titles. That is why it is a document of deception. It is even more than that. The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) once again, in the House during question period today and in the last answer to the question asked by my House leader, indicated what a great deception this budget really is.

"There are no new taxes. There is not a dime's worth of new taxes in this budget," says the Treasurer, "other than a couple of minor new taxes. The tax on the Ontario health insurance plan is up and there is the new water rental tax which will cost the average consumer some money. There are minor taxes such as these, but there are no new taxes."

Let us look at the reality. The reality is there is a new tax this year on personal income tax. It is the five per cent social services maintenance tax and it is in this year. All that happened was it was hidden in last year's budget. If there is no new tax, I really wish the Treasurer could explain the astounding increase of almost $1 billion in the amount of personal income taxes he is going to take in this year. Certainly, some of that will come out of the additional taxes people will pay as they go back to work, but the fact of the matter is there is a $400-million hidden tax increase. It is called the social services maintenance tax and while the Treasurer says he will take that tax off at the end of this year, we have heard a lot of talk from Tories about that kind of thing before. So that is one new tax.

Let me lump alcohol, gasoline and tobacco together, because this is the same old shell game from a government that delights in playing shell games. The Treasurer said: "I listened to the agricultural industry and we have no new tobacco taxes. We did what they asked us to do." In point of fact, they did not. There is no other explanation for the fact that tobacco taxes will go up $41 million this year, from $542 million to $583 million, other than the fact that other increases along the way will allow the province to dip its hand into the taxpayer's pocket and take another $41 million out of that pocket and out of that wallet.

The same holds true for the gasoline tax. One might wonder if people are going to drive so much more this year that there will be a $44-million increase in gasoline taxes. After all, there is no mention of it in here. Taxes did not go up because the Treasurer said they they did not go up. But then, of course, we remember what ad valorem means. Ad valorem means every time the price goes up, from the producers, or a new tax from Ottawa, or any kind of a change, the province takes its little share.

Finally, in the same way and in the same mode, the distilling industry will find this government will take more from the taxpayers of this province this year and, to use one example, will once again hurt the hospitality industry.

The fact is there really is a shameful deception in this budget. Nowhere in the 21 pages of the Treasurer's statement does he acknowledge -- and I want to acknowledge it this morning because I think it is very important -- that the reason the deficit has dropped is that Ottawa bailed those people out again.

The level of increase in transfer payments over the last two years is 27 per cent. Would that the municipalities and school boards of this province had the same kind of break; but, of course, they do not. They have those folks over there; they have a government that takes the money from Ottawa and invests it in consulting services, in paying the Suncor debt, in paying the interest on the land banks, in paying the interest on Minaki Lodge and in paying for three provincial secretaries who do nothing and whose duties are so ill defined that we can barely figure them out.

That is what we are paying for. We are paying for government waste. We are not passing that money on in new services in the health care field; we are not passing it along in new services in the social services field; indeed, we are not passing it on to the municipalities, which are so hard-pressed for cash their property taxes continue to rise.

What was the Treasurer's only word to the municipalities? It was a threat: "Get your house in order, fellows. That is a terrible thing you are doing. You are increasing property taxes six and seven per cent." As I get into my remarks, I will mention a couple of areas where the property tax increases are occurring directly as a result of this government's negligence in providing the services it has the ability to provide.

One of the little shell games the government played was just how expensive the social development policy field was. I did a little addition. The increase in the two fields of health and community and social services this year is approximately $700 million or $800 million. Even allowing for a five per cent increase, the increase would have been $500 million, and yet the government is collecting an extra $400 million from something called the social services maintenance tax.

It is playing its same old game. It is taking that $400 million and saying: "We had better throw a little bit into the social policy field. We had better hide a little bit of it in there so we can claim we are actually doing something." But it is going to take about $200 million of the social services maintenance tax this year and use it for something else, probably to pay the Suncor debt. I suspect it will use the hard-earned tax dollars that people have paid, thinking they are paying to maintain social services, and use them to help pay for our foolish purchase of Suncor.

Before I get into a number of social policy areas, I want to speak briefly about a matter of great local concern in my riding, in the whole area of Essex and Kent counties, in the Niagara Peninsula, here in Metropolitan Toronto and in a number of areas of Ontario, and that is the so-called help for the auto parts industry.

This is typical of the kind of deception the government has practised in this budget. On page 8 of the budget, the Treasurer speaks of how the impact of industrial transformation is more evident in the automotive sector. He says, "To help meet this challenge we will provide, through BILD...a new three-year automotive parts investment fund."

11:40 a.m.

That, as members will recall, is what was promised to us in the speech from the throne. Indeed, that was what the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) indicated the government might be coming up with when he spoke on my private member's resolution last fall. In my private member's resolution, as I know members will remember, I suggested there should be some direct government involvement to help the Canadian-owned auto parts sector to modernize.

What do we get from this government? We get a commitment that we are going to have an automotive parts trust fund. That is great, but in typical fashion, having established the fund, lo and behold there is almost no money, only $30 million. That is a fair amount of money, but like everything else in this budget, it is over three years. That means the auto parts industry of this province, the 700 or 800 auto parts sector firms, will get a measly $10 million a year.

Those of us who have watched the economic transformation of the Big Three know that in terms of the retooling, redesigning and modernizing of their plants, one can talk of $200 million, $300 million or $400 million for one plant alone. Many of the auto parts firms are small; they are certainly not those kinds of large plants. Even so, while $30 million over three years might have been a reasonable amount for the city of Windsor, maybe even for the whole county of Essex, it certainly is not going to go very far to modernize the auto parts industry throughout this whole province.

It is typical of this government to mouth platitudes and nice words about how it believes in the small business sector as the engine that drives the economy, but never ask this government to put up a dime's worth of help for the industry. That is what we have not received again in this budget. We simply have the usual shell game, a lot of rhetoric: "Oh, yes, we are helping them out. We have established a trust fund." When we look below the surface, when we look for the money, there is no money. I think that is a tragedy for the auto parts industry.

I am very disappointed, because the Treasurer, who is a former Minister of Industry and Trade, should have understood the need for a trust fund that would have tripled that amount of money, but he has come up with only a measly $30 million. It was typical of a budget that is long on rhetoric and short on substance, and substance in a budget is the kind of dollars a government is willing to put into programs.

I want to turn to a number of social issues in my role as critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The budget is not only an economic statement, it is also a social statement, a statement of this government's, or any government's, concern, particularly for the needy in our society. This budget is tragically short of concern for those people. The level of compassion is all contained in the rhetoric. There is no compassion when the money begins to flow.

Let me start with the issue I raised with the Treasurer today, which I raised with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) yesterday. That is the tragedy of the 55,600 single recipients of the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled. Indeed, it is the tragedy of the additional recipients of Gains-D who are married and have children. I want to focus on the single disabled, although the problem is no less severe at the family level, as we all know when we try to deal with the horrible poverty we find as individual constituency members looking at constituency issues.

The tragedy for those disabled is that they receive $382 a month. The single elderly, through a combination, particularly by Ottawa and latterly by this government, of a recognition of their need, will receive $682 a month by the end of this year. That is being staged in. By the end of this year the difference between the single disabled and the single elderly will be $300 a month.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development, in a statement which I am sure he regrets, said last month the budget would indicate the government's intentions for the future for that group. It did. The intention is to ignore their plight, their existence of poverty and to say to those almost 56,000 individuals: "You are not very important. We gave the doctors 14 per cent last year. We can give the doctors 11 per cent or we can roll them back too, so we will give them nine per cent, but there is no money for the single disabled."

I am sure the Provincial Secretary for Social Development would understand that if he went immediately to the $682 figure, it would cost $70 million to $80 million in the first full fiscal year. That money would be poured back dime for dime, dollar for dollar, into the economy because when people are earning that low a level of income they spend everything they can take in.

Even if the government had made a start in its usual famous way, phased in $25 or $50 now and another $50 in December, even if it had gone that route, the cost would be in the order of $20 million to $25 million in this first fiscal year. But the government could not find it in its heart to help the single disabled.

I cannot for the life of me understand this huge discrepancy in funding. The Treasurer stands in his place and says, "We are going to have some Canada pension plan reform." It is the same old cop-out from the Treasurer. He wants to have reform in an area where it is not going to cost him a dime, but he knows reform is not going to happen tomorrow, next week or next month and probably not next year. How long must they wait?

The single elderly receive that level of income because they are too old to work for the rest of their lives, while single disabled people, many of whom are called permanently unemployable, will be disabled for the rest of their lives too. What is the difference? In fact, there is none, except this government likes to put on a show that it cares for the single elderly and for the elderly in general. I suppose they are a little more powerful lobby group. There is no similar show for the disabled of this province.

The Treasurer said a lot of words about compassion and about showing compassion in his budget, but when it came to the disabled of the province, he stopped with words. There was no money; there were minor changes. There is the new attendant care program, which I will get to in a second, and changes in the assessment rates, an assessment holiday in a sense for accommodation changes. That is a program that will cost the government not one penny. It will cost the municipalities.

I noticed there was no pledge to help the municipalities, to say, "Send us the bill and we will help you for a period because you are going through tough times." There was none of that. The municipalities will not get the extra revenue; they will lose it. That is too bad for them.

11:50 a.m.

I want to turn to attendant care with respect to the disabled because the Treasurer alluded to it today. He talked about the great attendant care initiatives of this government. It is fair to examine the specifics in detail. When one cuts through the rhetoric of the budget, the Treasurer's phrase, "to expand our program of attendant care," really means he is going to expand group homes, otherwise known as cluster dwellings, by 78 people a year over five years. No wonder he did not use the exact numbers. How in heaven's name is that going to meet the demands of those who are severely physically disabled to be able to live full and productive lives?

There was a comment from the previous Provincial Secretary for Social Development last fall in answer to a question about the five cornerstones of the government, the independence, equity and equality cornerstones of this government. For those who wish to lead independent lives, for those who wish equality, for those who wish to live a life following those five cornerstones, where is it in this program? There is simply no help.

There is a second program, and again it is no wonder they did not put numbers in the budget. It was too embarrassing. This new trumpeted outreach attendant care program is going to reach a grand total of 48 people annually over five years. I think the government will excuse the disabled of Ontario if they are not overwhelmed by its generosity.

Unless my mathematics are wrong, we are talking about an additional 600 or 700 people who will be helped by this government through attendant care by the end of the decade of the 1980s -- not tomorrow, not next year, not even two years down the road, but by the end of the decade of the 1980s. I think we should all ponder this and think about it. We are not even to the middle of the decade, and five years from now the government will not have summoned up enough dollars to help even another 1,000 people.

I want to speak briefly about the assistive devices program as it pertains to the disabled. I was struck by a comment made yesterday by my seatmate, the Treasury critic for our party, that he always found it interesting that when someone lost a limb, when an arm or a leg was cut off in an accident, the government would pay the medical professionals for treating the injury, but when we tried to put this person's body back together at least somewhat, then we would not pay.

I think it is appalling that the budget did not extend the assistive devices program to those over 18 years of age. There are thousands of disabled adults in this province who have received the message from this government loud and clear that they are going to have to continue to approach charities and service clubs for the thousands of dollars they need for assistive devices.

I do not know about anyone on the government side or any members in this House right now, but I for one happen to think the service clubs have given and given almost more than they have to give. Frankly, there is no more to give. The volunteer organizations and the volunteer sector simply cannot do what it is the duty of the government and of the legislators of this province to do. There is only so much money.

I found it interesting that the budget for children's programs has been progressively reduced, from $10 million to $5 million, in spite of the fact that the need is for somewhere around $13 million.

I want to turn briefly to the matter of day care because, again, the budget was long on rhetoric and short on substance. The substance here was the commitment to help those women who want to work to be able to get out and work and to be able to leave their children in an environment where they will grow and learn.

In 1980 there were an estimated 355,000 children under the age of six in Ontario who needed some kind of full- or part-time day care. As of November 1983, there were 83,000 children enrolled in licensed day care centres, and at that time there were 24,500 subsidized children in Ontario, an increase of 66 per cent over 1980.

The 1,500 spaces created in the budget represent only a six per cent increase over that 1983 level. That falls substantially short of the Treasurer's rhetoric in his budget about child care, that the government understands that "access to high quality, affordable child care is an essential requirement...." If it is so essential, why were there so few new subsidized spaces?

Ontario needs more than 1,500 new subsidized spaces. Toronto had more than 1,300 children on its waiting list as of March 1984 and the city has requested a minimum of 1,700 new spaces. I must say I will be a little selfish here and say to the Toronto members I hope the 1,500 are not all used in Toronto because we have a need for some subsidized spaces in Windsor. There is a need for some subsidized spaces in a few other communities, but there is no doubt that Toronto's need is great. Ottawa's need is great; it needs 608. London needs 50 and Sault Ste. Marie needs 80. The list goes on and on.

Even worse than that, some day care centres are running deficits because their provincial grants for subsidized spaces are not large enough to cover the need in the area. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who still have some compassion. What they do is, if you need subsidized day care you are brought into the system.

Fort Frances, for example, has a deficit of approximately $30,000. Sioux Lookout has a deficit as well of $30,000. Those may not be large deficits for this government or this city. Even in my own community of Windsor, $30,000 is not much, but in Fort Frances or Sioux Lookout that is a lot of money. The municipalities have been bailing out those centres. They have been picking up the deficit and covering it all, but one day soon the municipalities simply are not going to be able to do that.

What was the government's response, showing compassion as it did to the municipalities? The government threatened them. The government said, "You municipalities are going to have to get your houses in order." One of the reasons the house has got out of order is that they are trying to do the job the government of Ontario refuses to do for those who need day care in this province. I for one think it is a pretty shameful commentary. They have lots of money for all their extra perks and emoluments over there. Maybe we ought to be diverting it to the people who really need our help.

The second part of the program is the $1.2 million targeted for single parents. All this is going to be is an extended baby-sitting service. That is not what day care is really about. It is going to be unsupervised, it is going to be unregulated and it may often be unsafe. I refer the government members particularly to some of the comments in the recent report of the women's directorate pointing out that exact problem, the lack of safety. Single parents deserve adequate licensed care for their children.

I want to deal quickly with a couple of other areas. I could talk about family violence and the continuing refusal of this government. It has put in another $3.5 million to expand shelter services, which means we are simply going to have more transition and interval houses that are going to be in crisis. The answer to the problem is block funding. I do not know how much longer it is going to take this government to come to that point and understand that.

12 noon

I see my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) is here. I believe he sat on that committee. He was one of those who recommended block funding. Mr. Acting Speaker, I think you, as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), sat on the social development committee. It seems to me that the committee, in doing its work as carefully and thoroughly as it did, took a look at the various funding alternatives and came to the conclusion that block funding was the only acceptable alternative.

Perhaps I can make a modest suggestion to those members on the government side who sat on that committee. Maybe they should at least raise this matter in caucus, if they cannot get into the cabinet room. Maybe they could put up their hands and say: "Let us have a discussion about whether we really mean what we said. We want to put some dollars behind our rhetoric in terms of family violence." I will leave that to the members of the government party. If they want to do it, that is fine. A new Liberal government will move quickly to correct that wrong.

Mr. Barlow: Not for a long time.

Mr. Wrye: If the Tories want to go for an election this fall, then we will just be over there six months earlier than if they go next spring.

I want to turn briefly to the Ministry of Labour. We have not picked on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in terms of spending cutbacks, because he did not get hit quite as badly as our poor friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), who must be wondering what he has to do and what kinds of crises we have to have to get some decent funding for the environment of this province.

I am trying to remember the numbers from the previous year; maybe as I speak l can find them. I notice the Minister of Labour once again this year found he was on the short end of the funding mess; he lost another $1 million and now is down to about $74 million. Those of us on this side believe in cutbacks, but we wonder why there are these kinds of cutbacks in a ministry that is as essential to the working people of this province as the Ministry of Labour.

If the money were for consultant services I could applaud that, but I suspect it is not. I would have thought a modest increase was in order, and I am sure my friend the parliamentary assistant would agree with me, particularly given the bold commitments this government is making to having all those new employment standards officers running around the province making sure its brand new equal pay strategy is implemented.

I see that the overall staff of the Ministry of Labour this year is going to go up by a grand total of some 27. I suggest with all due respect that this is one area where the number is probably inadequate. We have two employment standards officers in Windsor, and we could probably use at least two more to make sure working men and women are getting their just due. Yet here is another ministry that has been slashed.

I think it says something unfortunate about the clout in cabinet of my good friend the Minister of Labour, who is a man of genuine compassion. I am afraid in the cabinet offices he is not a man of real clout. By cutting back the budget in this area, do we want to cut back on employment standards officers? Do we want to cut back on inspectors in the occupational health and safety branch? Do we really want cutbacks in such areas that are fundamental to the protection of the workers of this province?

Before I wrap up, I want to turn very briefly to the issue of the training of women and older workers. In a sense, I am wrapping up the same way I began, talking about the shell game of this government. The government in its budget said it would provide $40 million for special training initiatives targeted to help women, older workers and others adversely affected by technological changes. That sounds very good, something we can all applaud: $40 million of new money.

When the Treasury officials came into the lockup, we asked, "Is this $40 million all new money?" The Treasury official said, "No, not exactly." We said, "What programs are you replacing?" The official replied, "We have three right now: the technical upgrading program, the training in business and industry program and the Ontario training incentive program."

We asked, "How much money did they have last year?" When the government is caught in another of its shell games, trying to find out is hard. They have all the numbers when they look good, but they are never too sure when they do not look good. The Treasury official said, "Somewhere over $20 million." I suggested $24 million or $25 million. "Maybe not that high."

It is not a $40-million program. It is a $15-million program. Why do we not call it what it is? Why do we not stop offering the people of Ontario a perception of action when there is no action? That is typical of this government.

We have perhaps a grand total of $15 million for all the older workers who are being laid off and desperately need some money to get them back earning money so they can help fund the array of services we want funded in Ontario. Some of that $15 million is for workers affected by technological change and some of it is for the women of this province. The final answer is that there is not very much for anyone. That is the ultimate condemnation of this budget.

I will praise the Treasurer, who in a positive way has shown the ability to be somewhat more innovative than his predecessor, fine gentleman that he is but rather lacking in imagination. The Treasurer has shown imagination in two areas. He has some programs that show some thoughtfulness and possibility, but his second imagination was in trying to figure out a way to pretend there was action when there was not.

One can have a vast array of programs -- there are certainly more programs than there is money -- but if one does not have the budget to support them, they are useless. They may be worse than useless, because they put on a show of action, substance, vision and reform where there is none.

I wish this budget had captured the kind of vision we need in Ontario. Instead, it is a budget of a government that is worn out and tired; it is a budget, in the phrase my friend the provincial secretary used, of a "settled government"; a government settled in its ways and determined not to leave those ways, a government that puts out a message of being a good manager but in reality is fresh out of ideas and initiatives and is not managing this province with the kind of dexterity needed in a province with a budget of $25 billion or $27 billion.

I regret that is so, but in the months to come, as people see the reality of this budget, they will realize they have been conned once again with some hidden tax increases and with programs that exist nowhere but on paper and in the imaginative mind of the Treasurer. They will unfortunately find the government has done little, if anything, to help the unemployed and helpless in our society get back to having some dignity and self-respect.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate, for once, that we are here at quorum level in the House on a Friday to deal with what should be the most important document of the year. Normally it would be a tragedy, but that is the way this place operates in terms of not having serious attention paid to debate within this chamber, attention it often warrants.

In this case, if we were to go to subquorum level, probably nobody would raise a quorum call because this document is not worth any more concentration than six or seven of us here flattering amongst ourselves.

When we give speeches here, we often feel it is a hard place to give one because: "My God, there are only a few of us here. There is no response. Who are we talking to anyway?" Today I really do not care. I would just as soon be here talking to myself about this and talking about why this budget is so senseless. The Treasurer, in his responses in this House to questions that are asked, has been supercilious and offensive to people on this side, especially on social issues.

The only thing that is right about this whole budget is that it is entitled Economic Transformation and talks about social transformation in the body of it. That is what our society is going through; there is no doubt about that at all. It is appropriate to have that tag on it. Frankly, all we get is flim-flammery and really neat packaging of ideas, but absolutely no substance and no real attention to the transformation that is taking place.

If I get enraged, as I was today in question period about the responses to questions by opposition parties that I considered to be substantial, it is because this document is so out of touch with the economic realities and the social transformation that I see taking place out there.

On Wednesday, I have my riding hours; others here have theirs on different days of the week. I had to give a speech afterwards so we crammed those who were coming forward in about an hour and a half. Eight different people or groups came in to talk to me. It was the day after this budget had come down. They came in with some of the most tragic stories and heart-rending tales of what they were going through while our province is undergoing this economic transformation.

I thought, "What has this document done for any of them?" It has not done anything. It does not address in serious terms what is happening to our society with the kinds of changes that are taking place.

There are those among us, and we are part of them, who are privileged and doing very well through the recession, the recovery or whatever one wants to call it. We are benefiting tremendously at this point. At the same time there are increasing numbers of people out there who are suffering terribly. They are a minority -- and I guess that is why we can ignore them as we have in this budget -- but they are an increasing minority.

This is no time for a tricky budget of traditional good times that one can put out in this fashion. This is a time to address the seriousness of the situation. This is not the time to be proud that we spend less per capita on the people of this province than any other province does. This is no time to say, "I am able to hold down the deficit at this point."

What does a triple-A rating mean to a person who has been waiting for a year and a half for subsidized housing? What does it mean to the SKF worker who has been unemployed for two and a half years now, whose family is disintegrating around him and who has lost all sense of his own self-worth? It means nothing. This is an immoral budget.

I hear the Treasurer talking about the things that are going to be done, whether in day care, socially assisted housing or to assist single-family benefits mothers, all of a sudden and out of the blue, even in the miserable terms he is talking about. It is as if this has not been the government we have had for the last 40 years. It has had a chance to deal with this; it has not dealt with it. Now it wants to tinker some more, as if that is going to do anything, when we need economic and social transformation to assist the people who are being left out.

The first person who came into my office on Wednesday was a glass worker who earns about $16,000 a year. His daughter, he is proud to say, has gone to McMaster University. She is going to be a teacher and is going to move up in society. Yet she had run into a landlord who had charged illegal rent while she was at school and she was now having to go to court to get that money back. She was having to travel all the way to Hamilton. He was taking a day off work to go and represent her in court. She was feeling pretty disadvantaged as to the way society operates.

The next person who came in had a much more serious problem. She did not even want my help, but just wanted to talk. She is a deserted woman. Her husband left four years ago and has paid two months of support in that period, although he was supposed to have paid $300 a month.

She went on to family benefits but could not stand the humiliation and what it felt like to go into a store with her cheque to try to get somebody to cash it, with them understanding that she was on social assistance. She could not stand the feeling of separation that took place and the put-down she felt, feeling less than human and that somehow it was her fault this guy had run out and that she had caused that to take place. She could not stand it and she went out and got work.

She now has a job that allows her to bring home about $750 a month. She has three children at home. She cannot pay her rent at this point. She needs her tax credit back from her income tax before she will be able to meet the deficit she has.

The day before she came in to see me her 17-year-old son was at home. He is at school but is looking for work to try to help the family income. The landlord appeared with his eviction notice. This was after they had been to court and the judge had already ruled that she should be given time to pay, because it was not through any fault of her own but just because of her lack of income that she was unable to pay. He still went ahead with an eviction notice.

The landlord not only gave her the notice but he also abused her son by saying: "What is a big, strapping fellow like you doing sitting around here on his ass anyway? Why are you not out there getting a job? If you had a job, your mother would be able to pay the rent and we would not have these problems."

The landlord was placing the onus on the kid, who had already gone through a family breakdown and had been living in poverty for four years, and was making him feel that he was personally responsible for the economic situation we find ourselves in and the social situation he found himself in.

All the woman wanted to do was talk. She said: "I cannot talk to anybody else in my building. They will not accept me because of what I have gone through and the problems I have."

I ask myself: What has this budget done for that woman with the fundamental inequality she experiences in this society and the fact that her husband, who under law is supposed to provide her with $300 a month, has not done so for years? As a result, she and her three children are living in poverty.

12:20 p.m.

The next person who came in was somebody living in Ontario Housing Corp. housing, an overpaid hospital worker. The members know about those people who make those grand amounts of money. Her income is $14,000 a year. She has three children and is paying $450 a month rent in Ontario Housing. That is subsidized housing for someone who makes $14,000 a year. She is no longer even eligible for full Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance. In this province, a person at that level has to pay part of the premium.

She could not understand why her rent had not been reduced after her daughter, who had a part-time job, lost that job. She thought rent was supposed to be geared to income. Unfortunately, her daughter is now 21 years old and as far as Ontario Housing is concerned she has a responsibility to bring in money, whether or not she is working.

What has this budget done for her? What has it done for that working-poor family? It means she now has to pay more in Ontario health insurance plan premiums. She will pay proportionately more in taxes this year than the members in this House and I will do, at $45,000, $48,000 or whatever it is we make here these days, part of which is tax free. That is part of our privilege in this society. This budget has not addressed such people who are suffering very dramatically in a very real way.

The next family who came in to see me, a family of four with two small children, has been trying to get into Ontario Housing accommodation. They have been on the OHC waiting list for a year and a half. They have been living in an apartment in a house where there is not sufficient protection from the elements to stop the rain from coming in. Any time the wind blows from the east the rain just pours in and soaks the whole place. There has not been proper heating and they pay $500 a month.

They are now lower on the OHC waiting list than they were four months ago. Why? Because the father got a job. He got a Canada-Ontario employment development job. He got a job that was supposed to requalify him for unemployment insurance. As a result of getting a job, they lost points and dropped down the waiting list.

He has now discovered the job that was supposed to provide him with enough weeks of work to get him back on to Unemployment Insurance Commission payments is going to stop two weeks short. The park they are fixing up is going to be done two weeks in advance, and all those people who thought they were going to requalify for UIC benefits are going to end up with none at all.

By about the second week in June, he is going to be out of work. By the last two days in June, he is being asked by his landlord to vacate his apartment. He still cannot get any more points on the OHC waiting list. He cannot increase his chances of getting in.

I told him that from my experience recently, what would take place was that they would be evicted. He would go on welfare. That would increase their points and put them farther up the list. It would not guarantee them housing. They would then probably have to go to a hostel. He said they would never do that. That would mean they would split up the family and he and one child would go to the one-bedroom apartment of his brother and his brother's wife and one child. His wife would go to her sister's apartment where there is already a family of three living. That would also increase their points. Then they might have a very good chance of getting into Ontario Housing by the end of September.

What has this budget done for those people? Mr. Speaker, you will be very pleased to know it has addressed their needs. There has been an enormous investment in assisted housing in Ontario. Each year for the next number of years the government is going to create 600 new spaces for people who need subsidized housing.

The reason that person is so far down the waiting list is that there are 18,000 families waiting for housing in Ontario. There are going to be 640 spaces added to what we already have, which is really going to help those waiting lists a great deal, especially when one considers that handicapped singles and seniors will also be eligible. There are a further 8,000 people waiting for those spaces right now.

That is what this government has done to address the reality. It does nothing for these people. There is not one new building. That was admitted by absence of reply by the Treasurer today when he was asked.

One cannot build the units the government is talking about building for the money being talked about. For $10,000 a unit, it means it is going to get subsidized units in existing buildings. We have already seen how well that system has worked. There is not going to be any new construction of affordable housing in this budget, no matter what the need. That has already been amply demonstrated.

How can one take this kind of budget seriously? Why bother coming in? I do not think one should have to do one's duty here today. I will be pleased just to stay here and speak to myself. I do not think members should bother bringing themselves in; it is not worth it.

This budget is like living in a cocoon; it is not living in Ontario today. It certainly is not living in the Ontario that I see in my riding. If it is, then it is fundamentally immoral. If the Treasurer recognizes the problems out there are as I am saying they are, then this is an immoral budget and he should be ashamed of himself. He should not get up with his supercilious grins and his little chucklings to answer questions or not answer questions during question period. He should be ashamed of it, but he is not; he is as proud as a little peacock about the whole damned thing.

The next person who came in to see me -- this is a one-evening snapshot for members -- was a father who could not understand why his son, who had gone to Birchmount Park Collegiate because of its really good shop courses, had gone there only to find out that in grade 10 none of the shop options he wanted was going to be available. There was no explanation; they were just not going to be available.

I was able to tell him why they were not going to be available. As a response to the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program the registration for technical courses in Scarborough has dropped 38 per cent. They are shutting down whole shop sections in schools like Birchmount Park Collegiate that concentrated in those areas in the past. Now if he wants to get that technical education he is going to have to go halfway across Scarborough to get it; he is not going to be able to go to his own local high school.

So much for the economic transformation, the need for more skilled workers in our society. This is a kid who wants that kind of existence and it is nowhere there for him.

I tried to explain this to his father. He asked: "Why did the school not tell me in advance this was going to be the case so I could at least have planned for him to go to another school before this? Why could I not have known?" The answer is that the school boards did not know what the effects of OSIS were going to be, just as the government does not know what its effects are going to be. This kid now has no idea what he is going to do. His father went away shaking his head and wondering what was actually going on in government planning.

The next person who came in was a woman from an Opportunities for Advancement group in Scarborough, family benefits women who are doing their best to get off that reliance on social assistance and to get back into the work force. She was talking about her difficulties in attending school to get upgrading to grade 9, 10 and 11, because she had only a grade 6 education.

She had applied to a community college, but the community college told her there would be no Ontario student assistance this year, it had been cut off, and that if she were to go for that kind of academic upgrading to a community college she would have to go through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.

She went to CEIC and was told she could put her name on the list, but all the seats were taken for those courses for the next year and a half and it would be at least four semesters before she would be able to enter the basic upgrading program. Her only choice was to take it through the local high school, which would probably mean it would take three years to do it instead of the kind of upgrading we have in our community colleges, which sometimes takes only a year these days.

Her difficulty was that she lives in the north part of Scarborough and the school that provides this program is down at the border between the riding of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and my riding, at the very south end of our ridings. It takes about an hour to get there by bus and there is little provision in the way of day care.

12:30 p.m.

She was asking me: "How can I afford to go to school when there is no financial assistance for me to go because it is at the secondary level and not at the post-secondary level? I cannot find day care to keep my child while I get this upgrading and, quite frankly, I cannot even afford to buy a Metropass so I could go five days a week."

I would love the Treasurer of Ontario to explain to me what is in this budget for her. He may say there is $1.2 million in here. He will not dare to say it is additional money, new this year, but it is just a continuation of what was going on last year to help family benefits recipients who want to get off assistance and get out to have day care assistance. He knows full well what that is about.

It is almost all concentrated in the areas where the family benefits and general welfare integration programs are taking place and it is invariably private home day care, often in an unsupervised fashion and without standards, that is being provided. It is like leaving one's child with a friend and hoping the child will be receiving the kind of assistance and stimulation one would want and expect if he were in a group day care situation.

There is going to be an increase of 1,500 subsidized day care spaces. That is the other thing that perhaps this woman will get in this budget. As the last speaker said, the demand across the province for subsidized spaces is enormous. In Toronto alone, there are 1,714 spaces requested of the government. They say they need that many. We are being offered 1,500 in total.

There are probably as many as 4,000 to 5,000 needed immediately around the province. I wonder how many of the municipalities are going to pick up on subsidized day care increases as their emphasis in the coming year, when they have been told by the Treasurer they must not increase their budgets, even to the level of inflation.

How many of those communities, given that kind of ultimatum, are going to have to cut back on existing programs to meet the requirements of the tight-fisted Treasurer of Ontario? How many of them are actually going to expand into new day care facilities? How many of them are going to offer more subsidized spaces?

The economic reality for a lot of day care operators today is they cannot afford more subsidized spaces. Day care facilities run by municipalities are often running at 80 per cent subsidization instead of the 50:50 rate we hoped for initially. They are providing day care for the poor only.

The other operations are so dependent on full-paying customers, because of a lack of basic funding formula for day care, that they cannot afford to have more subsidized day care spaces. More subsidized day care spaces will increase their deficits and mean they have to lay off people. In many places they are not filling subsidized spaces they actually have because it is economically impossible for them to do so.

What are we going to hear from the Treasurer in another few months? "I offered 1,500 and they would not take them. They did not need them." That is the kind of thing we are going to hear from him, when it is because of the way it has been dealt with.

The likelihood of this woman receiving that kind of assistance is very small. The reality of what is taking place in Metropolitan Toronto is that the pressure is so severe on the need for subsidized spaces that our municipality is now in the process of putting down new terms for who will qualify for subsidized day care. We should forget what is in the ministry manual and the regulations of the ministry about who can apply and who can be eligible. They will never say that if they let all those people who are eligible on the list, the waiting list would be far too long and they would never get them in.

In reality, they are going to make it tougher and tougher for people to be eligible for subsidization. Only the poorest of the poor are going to be eligible. That means all the other people -- the working poor, middle- and low-income people -- who basically cannot afford more than $100 a week in day care costs are now going to be required to pay the full amount and will not even be eligible for subsidization.

A day care worker said to me the other day it was like providing a pail of water to somebody whose house is on fire. It is nice to have it, but by God, it is not going to do any good at all.

The acting Speaker is from Markham. If he would like to, I invite him to take a different route home from the one he normally takes. He should drive along Eglinton Avenue through my riding. Between Pharmacy and Birchmount, he will see four or five factories closed down, the latest being Canadian General Electric. General Motors is doing very well, but Alcan has some problems at the moment. The old SKF plant, which used to have very highly paid workers, is now being used for bank workers who are paid at a much lower rate. It is a combination of desolation row and a deterioration of the skilled work force base and industrial base in that part of my riding. That is the reality of what I see in Scarborough.

I look at this budget. What has been done to get CGE open, not as a mass food terminal for Knob Hill Farms, which is the suggestion, but as a major industrial plant again, providing work for people at decent wages? What is being done for the 36 per cent of the SKF workers who have been out of work for two years and whose average age is now 53? Nothing is being done.

The last speaker talked about the supposed money for retraining for older workers and women, and how much of that is really new money. Virtually none is. It is money that has been there in the past. Those people have still been unemployed for two and a half years. That money has not touched their lives.

Let me talk about their lives and why this budget either cannot be taken seriously or must be attacked in the most vicious terms. It has to be laughed at or it brings one to a boiling point. I see families who have lived in Scarborough for 25 or 26 years, since it began to develop as a major urban community. Those families are falling apart. Fathers who have been out of work for a period of time had never been unemployed in their lives. They may have been on strike twice in the whole history of the plant, once for six months and the other time very briefly

They had a good, solid life, with wages around $11 an hour, which is not great in the spectrum one can see in the work force, but it is pretty good. There was not a bad pension plan. At 54 years of age, they are now sitting at home wondering what their future is going to be, ineligible for welfare because they still have some savings and their wives are working part-time. Some wives are holding down two part-time jobs.

Their health is deteriorating. I invite the members to look at the report done by Dr. Paul Grayson on the deterioration in health of these workers in the last two years. Their kids are rebelling against them, not just the normal adolescent rebellion against parents, but because their fathers have lost their sense of self-worth. Their children are reinforcing that by saying: "The other guys' dads are able to work, are out there earning a living. They are providing. You are telling me I cannot go on a school trip because you cannot afford the five bucks. Everybody else can do it. You are a failure as a father."

12:40 p.m.

These people come into my office and some of them cry. They cannot get access to their pension plans because they left them there, presuming, as most of them did, they would be re-employed because they were skilled workers. They cannot get welfare. They ask: "Why have I been paying taxes for the last 25 years? What does this society owe me?" The Treasurer has told them what he thinks it owes them -- nothing. It does not owe them a thing, as long as the rest of us are getting by okay, as long as the majority can feel they are being protected and are not going the way of the SKF or the Canadian General Electric workers, as long as they feel they are going to be all right, there is no need to do too much for this guy. It does not matter if his world is falling apart. It does not matter if everything is disintegrating around him. That is what the Treasurer's view of social transformation is at the moment in our society.

We have a pittance in this budget to put forward to meet it. It is not just in my riding; it is across the province. The wonderful resurgence in the auto industry is true. Look at Windsor. There are 18,000 people still unemployed there. Although the auto production is way up, the number of workers is not.

When I was in Windsor, the families there did not want to talk any more. They knew what it was like to be down because they had been down so long. They just wanted to look at the good side, the production side. They did not want to look at the fact that the number of people going to credit counselling is as high as it has ever been, or that their debt loads were higher than they had ever been, or that the number of kids going in for meals in the Catholic school system has quadrupled in the last two years. They did not want to talk about that. They did not want to look at it any more.

That is exactly what this budget is reaffirming. In it the government is saying: "Do not look at the underside of Ontario, the other Ontario that is out there. Let us just put out a series of really neat-sounding programs with no money in them and be happy we have not increased the deficit. Let us pretend we have not taxed the poorest in our society by adding OHIP premiums on to them or having ad valorem taxes. Let us play out the charades. Let us see how well we can play the political game. On the first day after the budget, when it is the opposition's day to get at it, let us blunt that by appointing Ken Dryden as youth commissioner. That will really interrupt the normal flow of how we get attacked. That will be a really clever media thing to do." It was. It was brilliant.

Fundamentally, it ignores the fact of this reality. Either we in this House are so shut off from what is happening out there that we cannot understand it and cannot relate to it, or the Treasurer, in absentia, sees it and chooses to ignore it. He chooses to abandon these people further.

It is not just him and it is not just this government. It is happening in governments all across this country, in this nation and in the nation south of us. In ethical terms this notion is the acceptability of the politics of abandonment. That is reinforced in this legislation. I find it incredibly upsetting.

I presume there are others who would like to participate. I will just deal with one last thing, and there are so many things which offend me in terms of the lack of seriousness.

In the fall I raised the need to raise the minimum wage. The government responded with a two-stage implementation which would bring the lowest-paid workers in our society up to a minimum salary of about $160 a week by October 1984. In my view, $160 a week is no kind of base for people to get by on.

If the government is saying it wants people to work and believes the work ethic is important to our sense of values, and I do not think there is anybody in this House who would say it is not, then, as I said to the Treasurer in April, if he was saying $160 was all the government could give, we should look at some supplementary aid for those people that would really make them feel as if it was worth their while to be out participating in the system and going through all the insecurities that lower-wage earners have in our society and not to go on to social welfare.

There might be a number of private programs we make available to people on social assistance we could make available to those individuals, whether it is access to drug cards or various other kinds of things I suggested, and I will not enumerate them all again, at the moment.

I said, "But at least the one thing you must do is address the fact that because you have given them this increase, many of them are now not going to be eligible for full premium assistance and some of these families are actually going to have to pay the whole shot."

What did the Treasurer do? Not only did he not change the level at which people could come in on premium assistance, but he also increased the premium, which means the working poor in our society are now going to get doubly hit. They are going to get hit with a tax they have never had to pay before because it was pretty much tied to their level of income.

Let us face it. The last time we had an increase in the level of premium assistance was about the same time the minimum wage last went up. There is an understanding that those things should be tied together in some way. Instead, those people who, three months ago, would not have had to pay OHIP premiums are now going to have to pay from $86 to $714 out of their new increases in order to satisfy the government of Ontario. That is fundamentally unfair.

For people to understand what we are talking about, for us in this House -- whether we are regular members at our $45,000 level or cabinet people at whatever it is, $60,000 or $65,000, or leaders of the parties, with the money we have here and our wonderful plush blue seats and the comforts of our oak-carved surroundings -- if we take any poverty level, the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Social Development, Statistics Canada or the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, whatever we wish to take, people on the poverty line in Ontario, no matter what their family status is, whether they are single, with one kid, two kids or three kids, they all have to pay premiums. What kind of sense of social justice is that?

The Treasurer has the gall to come back and say that if we gave those people a break, we would then have to charge them income taxes in order to pay for it. Well, garbage we would. We in this House could assume more taxes. Part of our income that is nontaxable at the moment could become taxable. Perhaps those who are benefiting so well in our society could pay for it. There is no reason at all for the working poor in our society to have to pay at all. That is so much garbage that is being perpetrated. It is the kind of flim-flammery and political games-playing that always takes place in this House, in part of this House. It has nothing to do with reality.

I would like members on the other side to think what it is like to live in Toronto today with a family of four on a $19,000 income. They should think about their aspirations and their view of the world, about their houses or my house, about the amount of money I am paying on mortgages alone at the moment in comparison with what those people are bringing in as total income in a given month.

The government is suggesting for all the people in that situation, and there are a lot of them, that it was all right to bring in this kind of budget, that this budget was adequate for 1984. I suggest it is fundamentally offensive to all those people to suggest that.

Why could we not have a larger deficit at this point? If we believe the Treasurer when he says there is going to be recovery, which is not going to be held down by another interest rate spiral, why not build a little bit of investment in people into this budget? Why not go into a bit more deficit to help them? To ignore that and to have the gall to put the title of Economic Transformation on this little, puffy, bit of nonsense we were handed out on Tuesday, in my view, is one of the most obscene things to have taken place in this Legislature for a long time.

12:50 p.m.

It may be I have been too long with my nose in poverty issues and I cannot see beyond them to the glorious ascension of the working class into the sharing of the great benefits of our society through the natural development of our economy. It may be I am becoming myopic in my concerns about those people who are less well-off in our society and I cannot see that the wonderful initiatives for breaks for small business are exactly what it is going to take to get all those people employed and sharing in the wonderful wealth of Ontario. But I do not believe that. I believe what we are seeing instead is the perpetration of an ethic that is fundamentally destructive to our society, and that is that those who have get to keep and those who do not have will not get to have.

If we maintain this kind of attitude, I suggest we are going to see a society that is divided, with the rich living in their sumptuous surroundings behind gates that are locked and walls that are high with glass or barbed wire on the top of them and with guard dogs behind the walls -- as a friend of mine does, for instance, in Kingston, Jamaica, at the moment. He locks up his house every night, locks up individual parts of his house and lies with a gun under his pillow to preserve the wealth he has while the poor roam the streets.

That may seem a very farfetched notion in Ontario with all its wealth, but any continuation of this kind of nonaddressing of the issues is going to mean those divisions will increase, and as those divisions increase in our society, so will the ultimate destruction of our notions of democracy and of real sharing.

I therefore believe the Treasurer should either come into this House and speak with us seriously about these kinds of issues or he should state very clearly to us he does not believe them to be the case and they do not need addressing. Then we can just let this budget go and realize that it is irrelevancy itself personified, and we can go on with some other kind of business in this House, whatever it would be.

Surely we are in danger of becoming a Star Chamber, a totally removed group that has no connection with the people who elect us and who depend on us to bring social justice to the society. We might as well adjourn tomorrow and go home for the summer if this is all we can say to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, my view of the provincial budget is more optimistic than that of the members opposite and, I firmly believe, closer to the sentiments of the people we represent in Ontario. This year's budget contains much we can praise already, but I agree with those who have stated it is also a budget for the future and a positive one.

With this budget the government has clearly shown it recognizes Ontario is undergoing an economic transformation. At a time when the official opposition is calling for government make-work programs, the rest of Ontario, under the leadership of the Premier (Mr. Davis), has decided to face the challenges of the future. While members opposite here call for quick-fix solutions and subsidies for entire sectors of our economy, we on this side of the House know that government must do more than hand out money. At a time when our economy is emerging from a difficult period, it is especially important for government to work with other sectors in providing leadership, help and encouragement. This budget is a clear example that we are doing just that.

We are providing leadership by our longstanding policy of fiscal restraint and through the introduction of new and forward-looking programs. We are providing help to those individuals, communities, regions and sectors that have suffered more in recent years than we have here in this House. We are providing encouragement to the entrepreneurs and industries that will provide for our continued, further prosperity.

The budget abounds with examples. The fiscal plan for 1984-85 recognizes that the provincial deficit does not have to rise as it did in previous years when this was necessary to help the economy and people of Ontario to weather the recession. While revenue is expected to grow by 9.6 per cent during this fiscal year, cash requirements are expected to be 13.2 per cent lower. Politically, it would have been tempting to spend more money while heeding the cries of the opposition that times are still terrible and governments should still continue to spend. Instead, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and this government have chosen to recognize there have been improvements and that the Ontario economy continues to recovery from the recession.

The figures show we can expect a 4.7 per cent increase in real economic growth and an even larger increase of 8.9 per cent in the growth of personal income. With these expectations, good sense would dictate the time has arrived to reduce government deficits and this government, through the Treasurer, is displaying that good sense.

It may have seemed reasonable for the Treasurer to stop there and say the province could now return to business as usual. However, that would have meant we would be ignoring that we are truly undergoing an economic transformation in Ontario and that this transformation requires us to help those individuals, communities and sectors hard hit by change.

Employment in Ontario this year is expected to increase by 125,000 jobs. This reinforces our confidence in our economy, but it must not disguise the fact that unemployment is too high and requires energetic and innovative action by government.

Young people have been particularly hard hit by the changes in our economy. They have traditionally experienced higher unemployment rates than the over-25 age group because of less experience and fewer skills. During the recession they were usually the first to be let go and the last to be rehired because of seniority and the familiar reasons of lack of skills and experience.

The recession saw another distinct problem group emerge. This group consists of older workers whose employers have been forced out of business and have laid off workers with little chance of recall. As these groups emerged and government provided stopgap employment programs, it became quite apparent that new job opportunities were opening up mainly for technologically skilled workers. Young people and laid-off older workers did not possess the skills to fill these jobs and, as a result, new training, retraining and skills upgrading programs were required. This budget continues to meet those requirements in a major and innovative way. Over the next three years the budget will provide for an expenditure of $600 million to deal specifically with the employment and training requirements of these two groups.

As the Treasurer has said, temporary make-work schemes have been rejected because they do not provide the skills and experience young people need to gain permanent, full-time jobs and careers. Such schemes can be useful in poor economic times, but that is not the major challenge now. Today our challenge is to ensure our young people have the opportunity to receive the skills, training and work experience to meet the demands of the job market.

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

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

May 18, 1984