Journal des débats 1986-mai-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Eves: In the gallery today there is a group of public health nurses from the riding of Parry Sound. These nurses are asking for wage parity with registered nurses in hospitals, nursing homes and other publicly funded institutions. They are just as qualified, and in some respects more qualified, than registered nurses in hospitals; yet they earn much less. In fact, the Muskoka-Parry Sound public health nurses are the second-lowest-paid nurses in the entire province.

In their bid for wage parity and mandatory binding arbitration, they have approached the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and they have made a presentation to the Pay Equity Commission as well. They have received no constructive responses from these ministers.

On June 12, 1985, during a demonstration of public health nurses at Queen's Park, the Minister of Labour said he favoured compulsory arbitration for public health nurses. When the Muskoka-Parry Sound public health nurses wrote to the minister recently, however, he referred this case to the Minister of Health, refusing to live up to his commitment as minister to the public health nurses across the province.

The public health nurses of Muskoka-Parry Sound have been without a contract since September. They have a right to be heard, and I ask that some of these ministers take the time at least to hear the public health nurses.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am glad we finally have the Tories on side on that one too.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I began work with the Children's Aid Society County of Essex as a social worker 11 years ago. At that time, there was constant frustration. Many of the children who needed mental health services had to go outside our community for that assistance. Eleven years later, very little has changed for the children in need in Essex county.

A survey conducted between April 1, 1983, and October 31, 1984, by the Children's Services Council in our area stated that 176 children under the age of 18 had to go outside the Windsor-Essex community for mental health services, while 114 were placed in our community. This situation is absolutely disgraceful.

Since the time the report was filed and made public in our area, at least three more children have committed suicide; yet an application for four emergency crisis mental health beds has been neglected. It has not been followed up by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There was a commitment last August by the ministry to negotiate these beds, but funding has since been refused. While this government neglects this problem, as did the previous government, children in our region go unserved.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I ask that the government consider this very serious problem.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Epp: Members of this House will recall that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) announced on December 16, 1985, the government's adoption of eight of the 53 recommendations contained in the Taxing Matters report first tabled in the House on November 8, 1985.

This report, prepared under my direction, put forward a program for the reform of property assessment and taxation in Ontario. I am pleased to advise the House that, in accordance with the minister's statement of December 16, a revised assessment program policy manual is now available. The revised manual includes new information pertaining to internal inspection procedures by assessors, assistance to taxpayers in filing appeals and improvements to residential properties which are exempt from assessment and taxation.

Further, the cost of the manual has been reduced from $50 to $20 for all municipalities, public libraries and educational institutions in Ontario.

Finally, I have the pleasure of advising members that review of the remaining recommendations in the Taxing Matters report is well under way and will be reported to this House later this year. Members who wish a manual and the update for those manuals may contact my office, and I will be glad to forward them.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Baetz: His Alice-in-Wonderland speech to the Ontario Hospital Association by the sometimes Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has eastern Ontario residents repeating along with Alice "is puzzlement." The minister tells us we will get 608 more acute and chronic care beds. Note he said 608, not 606 or 610, but 608. That is long-range precision planning, one of the big weapons of this government. But wait a moment, Alice. Although the minister said precisely 608 beds, he added, "Well, not precisely, but approximately."

This very specific -- or is it very approximate? -- program will begin in an equally approximately precise or precisely approximate fashion. According to the minister, it will begin within five years -- or is it within eight years? -- or, anyway, within the next few years. One takes one's choice. The completion schedule paves the way into pure puzzlement. He says it will be in the era of the 1990s -- no, the mid-1990s or perhaps by the end of the century.

This plan boasts an eight per cent increase of beds, but during this time the minister says the general population will increase by 17 per cent. The elderly population which, as we all know, requires more hospital care on a per capita basis, will increase by a whopping 53 per cent; yet the minister says the eight per cent increase in the number of beds will result in more beds per capita.

Mr. Speaker, is puzzlement.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Foulds: Last week the federal Conservative government finally released some of its studies on free trade. Many of the studies remain secret; many of those released were heavily censored. What was released had an eerie ring to it. What was censored, the effects on the auto pact, could have a devastating effect on Ontario's economy; yet the Premier (Mr. Peterson) talks a good game while failing to protect Ontario's workers.

The federal studies predict short-term employment adjustments for workers and enhanced profitability for corporations, should Canada sign a free trade deal with the United States. Do members know what short-term employment adjustments mean in plain English? The people in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Terrace Bay, Wawa, and now Timmins know what that means. To these people, short-term employment adjustments mean permanent layoffs, plant closures and leaving their homes, all in the interest of enhanced profitability for their former employers.

The studies I cite predict adjustments for 27,000 textile workers and 17,000 workers in the manufacturing sector. Most of those are in Ontario, but the Premier has yet to say what he will do to protect Ontario's workers. The Premier must tell the people of Ontario the specific steps he will take to protect their jobs and their economic security. Through its silence on free trade, the government cannot fail the whole provincial economy the way it has failed northern Ontario's economy.

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Knight: I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) on his announcement last Friday that the rebuilding of the James Snow Parkway bridge will begin as soon as possible and the replacement will be as the bridge was originally designed.

As members know, the bridge over Highway 401 at the interchange just east of Milton collapsed from intense heat, which melted and twisted the support beams, following the crash of a tanker truck on March 25. One person died in the accident.

Members may not be aware that since its construction the value of the interchange to the citizens of Milton has come from reasons beyond that originally intended. It has become a vital eastern link to Highway 401 for the many Milton citizens who commute daily to Toronto. As Milton develops its industrial and residential areas, the interchange will act as an important access from Highway 401 to attract and service these developments. I know these facts persuaded the ministry that the interchange was a necessary part of the roadway network in the region of Halton and the town of Milton.

I further applaud the minister for his intention to open the westbound exit and eastbound entrance ramps while construction is under way.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Pollock: A group of people who were concerned that there was no training centre for volunteer firemen decided to do something about it. They formed a board of directors and solicited help from the general public and service clubs. They received a good response from the Norwood Lions Club and the local citizens. The board purchased property and built roads, and on Sunday, May 25, it dedicated its own official flag and kicked off a fund-raising campaign. The centre is called the Eastern Ontario Volunteer Firefighters' Training Centre and is located in Norwood.

They would welcome financial support from the Ontario government. I feel this is a needed and worthwhile project and it will be a place where volunteer firefighters can receive real, practical training and experience.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to call the attention of the House to a visitor at the table, Eddie Bright, Clerk of the House of Representatives of The Gambia, who is visiting us this week under the attachment program of the Office of the Clerk.

2:13 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is no issue more important to this government than the health and safety of workers. Since my first days in office, I have made clear my commitment to protect the health and physical wellbeing of the working men and women of Ontario.

General and nonspecific allegations which threaten to leave a cloud over the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act have been made recently. These allegations of policy and administrative deficiencies, as well as misconduct which might impair the proper enforcement of the act, have been made by some inspectors employed in the occupational health and safety division. Even though these allegations are vague and unspecified, they are serious charges.

The government will not allow its commitment to the workers of this province to be compromised. The government cannot and will not allow the cloud to linger. After consultation with senior government and ministry officials, we have determined that an independent, external review is the best method to investigate all the matters contained in and arising from these allegations.

The terms of reference of the review are as follows: With the assistance in full of all ministries, agencies, boards and commissions, the review will inquire into the allegations; evaluate the program performance, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the occupational health and safety program; inquire into the performance of officials in the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and determine whether there exists any evidence of misconduct by those officials that warrants further investigation; conduct a management audit of the occupational health and safety program; study any other related matters deemed necessary; and recommend changes to implement the findings.

As a result of our deliberations, I am pleased to inform the Legislature that my deputy minister will retain Geoffrey McKenzie, senior managing partner with the Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group, to undertake the detailed management review and program audit. Mr. McKenzie has broad consulting experience centred on the areas of policy development, planning and organization.

In addition, John Laskin, a Toronto lawyer, will conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations of misconduct. Mr. Laskin has served as counsel to a number of royal commissions and inquiries, including the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario. They will submit their report to my deputy minister on or before September 15, and the findings of the review will be made public.

Because of the nature of this matter, I want to inform the Legislature that before making a final determination, we reviewed our approach with Cliff Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Bob White, president of the United Auto Workers Union of Canada, and Leo Gerard, director of the United Steelworkers of America. These three leaders of organized labour have fully endorsed the method and approach of this comprehensive, external review.

I said at the beginning of the statement that no issue is more important than the health and safety of workers. I know all members of the assembly share that view. That is why the decision to have this independent, external review and the appointment of these individuals is timely and appropriate. I am determined to create an environment in which the public will have full confidence in the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The actions I have announced today will ensure the best system of occupational health and safety for the working men and women of Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to the attention of the members of the Legislature the attendance of a former member of the Legislature, Ted Bounsall. I might point out to the Minister of Labour that if he continues to get all this good press back in his home town, Ted will be back here very soon.

Mr. Gillies: First, with respect to the statement just made by the Minister of Labour, he will find that we in the opposition welcome a thorough and, we hope, impartial inquiry into the operations of his ministry. The allegations that have been made in recent days by various people in the public press regarding the operations of his ministry are serious and do have to be dealt with. I am glad the minister has undertaken a review.

However, I hope this review and inquiry will extend into several things he has not referred to in the statement. I hope the review will include a review of statements and announcements made by this minister to this House and whether the administration of the ministry is carrying through with the directions that are supposedly being set by the minister. The minister and members of the opposition have had disagreements on such matters as the reissuing of orders, if orders are being reissued since the minister made his statement in November. In some cases, we happen to believe they are. He says they are not. This should be part of the review.

I also suggest the minister may want to have this inquiry examine the larger issue. To me, the larger issue is the very disturbing fact that the number of work place accidents has increased. At this stage of the game anyway, the number of orders in force has decreased. I am sure the minister and members of this House want to know why this is happening. This could be a very valuable outcome of the inquiry. Is there any evidence that the Ontario work place in 1986 is or need be a less safe place than it was in 1985, 1984 and 1983? I ask him to look at that.

We welcome this inquiry, but if the inquiry is to be truly public and subject to the scrutiny of interested members of this House, it would be my hope that the report to the minister will then be made available to the scrutiny of a committee of this Legislature. It is good that his review will be external and independent, but then it will be time for the standing committee on resources development, the critics of the opposition parties and other interested members to take a thorough look at the outcome of this inquiry and perhaps, based on that, make some recommendations back to the minister on how to clear up some of this mess.

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statement the Minister of Labour made today with respect to the announcement of two separate inquiries. Obviously, we will have some questions to ask the minister about these inquiries. I understand one inquiry is going to be directly retained by the deputy minister. The other one, which is a review, does not seem to involve any kind of public inquiry, any subpoena powers for the investigation of documents or any formal protection of witnesses who may want to present evidence of this kind.

What is lacking here is a clear sense of direction and a clear sense of political will. That is the nature of the problem and that is the issue at hand. To ask Mr. Laskin, whatever his individual qualifications may be -- and those of us who know Mr. Laskin know of his qualifications and abilities -- puts Mr. Laskin in a very difficult position with regard to recommendations and issues surrounding the whole question and the whole field of health and safety.

The fact that there is no mention here of discussion with the Industrial Accident Prevention Association or of discussion with the various accident prevention associations working with the Workers' Compensation Board, and that no broad-brush approach is being taken, means we are getting neither fish nor fowl. We are not getting the political will we want, need and require; nor are we getting a full-scale, independent public inquiry into the whole field of health and safety, which would then make what I hope would be the broad, sweeping recommendations with respect to wholesale changes in the administration of health and safety that are clearly required.

In reply to the minister's statement, he has not seen the last of this issue. If he thinks giving it to Messrs McKenzie and Laskin is thereby sweeping the issue under the rug for the next few months, he is sadly mistaken.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will be producing a report very shortly. He has uncovered a number of cases during the last year, and that work will continue. It will continue as it should, in public, politically, in this Legislature to hold responsible the people who are responsible for this, the government of Ontario and the Minister of Labour. Those are the people who are going to be held responsible in this Legislature for the things that have not been done.

Mr. Martel: I find it intriguing when the minister in his statement talks about an audit. An audit has been done by the Provincial Auditor, which is having difficulty getting finalized or getting to the surface. The minister raises his head in wonder, but he should know what is going on his ministry. Part of the problem is that he only gets what people want him to hear. An audit has been done, which is having great difficulty getting completed, and it is high time that got done.

The thing that amazes me most is that, once again, we have some sort of phoney study and no one from labour is involved. Who but labourers themselves have a right to determine what they need to protect their health and safety in the work place? What we did the last time was give it to a couple of academics. We gave it to Dr. Ham, who did not understand what was going on. Today he himself will admit the internal responsibility system does not work, cannot work and will not work. Nobody from labour is involved. It is two academics -- great stuff, lawyers. They know what is going on in the work place.

They have never been in the work place. It is time the government got people involved who know what it is like to work for a living and to try to protect their health and safety. We have got a lot of nonsense again. If it is responsible for one thing, the government has kept the same principle the Tories had, which was that labour should have very little say. The Liberals have continued that policy. If the government said it was going to enforce the act seriously, 90 per cent of its problems would go away, but it has not had the will to do so.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to respond to a statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on Thursday last week and again yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully. I believe that could have been done on Thursday and not today.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if that is what it is: I would like to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order. The new standing orders call for responses to statements by ministries to be made on the day the statements are made.

Mr. Harris: With respect, Mr. Speaker, can you show me where it says that in the standing orders?

Mr. Speaker: I do not have the exact number in my head, but I will be glad to draw it to the member's attention.

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Before oral questions, I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today when I attempted to respond to a statement made in this Legislature yesterday, you indicated that was out of order. I ask you to review standing order 26 on statements by the ministry and responses. Nothing there indicates we ought not to be able to respond to any statement made by the ministry. On the same point, under standing order 28, I believe five minutes are quite correctly provided to the opposition parties to respond to statements that were made by ministers. I ask you to reconsider any future decisions on the basis of that.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept the member's suggestion that I review it. I will, of course, consider what was discussed prior to the House setting out the provision of standing orders and I will report back.

2:27 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I have a question for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for the Ontario Medical Association negotiations.

Yesterday the Minister of Health said he could not see any advantage in appointing a mediator to try to end the current dispute. He said he was not doing that, mainly because he had not received such a request from the OMA. Yet a couple of weeks ago the Premier apparently entertained the idea of appointing a mediator. As a measure of good faith, will the Attorney General indicate whether he will recommend to the government that a call now go to the OMA suggesting a mediator be brought in to end the current situation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the leader for the question, but it is wrongly directed. The two people who can answer that are referred to in the very question, namely, the Premier and the Minister of Health. They are both on public business elsewhere today. I will see they get notice of the question so they can reply to the leader at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Grossman: We are on the brink of major chaos in the health care system. The Minister of Health and the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: We are on the brink of a potential crisis in the health care system. The minister reports that the Premier and the Minister of Health are both away on urgent public business -- well, on public business. I put it to the Attorney General that there is no matter of more public import to the citizens of this province than the pending crisis and chaos in the health care system, which may start as early as this Thursday, and neither the Premier nor the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Attorney General and we request an answer today; not tomorrow or Thursday but today. As the person who has negotiated up front with the OMA, will he pick up the phone this afternoon and suggest that the OMA consider the option of a mediator so he might discuss that option at cabinet tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I said, I will be delighted to bring the leader's question and concern to the attention of the Minister of Health.

I should make one other observation in response to the question. The government has introduced the bill to which the honourable member refers in an effort to comply with the Canada Health Act, which was passed by a unanimous federal Parliament, including the Conservative Party. That act has been complied with or will be complied with shortly by eight other provinces, including Alberta and British Columbia. We are attempting to comply with that act in this province.

It is a difficult moment for the government and for the medical profession, for which I have the highest professional regard, as well as for the citizens of the province. The extravagant assertions the Leader of the Opposition makes are not conducive to an orderly resolution of the problems.

Mr. Grossman: It is the height of hypocrisy for the Attorney General to stand there and now pretend he is fond of the medical profession, which he has been criticizing for months.

He has decided he can answer questions in the House on this matter when he wants to put up a defence of his government's mean-spirited attempt to destroy the medical profession in this province. Since he has been willing to begin to answer questions, I put this question to him when we are on the brink of chaos in the health care system: Having put up this spirited defence of his determination to push through Bill 94, will he call the OMA and suggest that a mediator be appointed now to try to resolve this confusion?

Hon. Mr. Scott: On all issues of hypocrisy, I concede the field to an expert. I do not think that kind of language is useful. My friend obviously thinks it is useful in parliamentary debates; I do not.

My answer to the question is the answer I gave before. I will bring the Leader of the Opposition's concerns immediately to the attention of the Minister of Health, who has the statutory responsibility in these matters, not I.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Runciman: Those of us on this side of the House who read the red Star this morning -- probably not many did, but a few of us did -- were not surprised by the surprise of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on learning that Suncor was raising its wholesale prices for gasoline. That minister has almost totally ignored consumer concerns about gasoline prices, and in his one foray into the area he was led down the garden path.

With respect to the Suncor announcement, given that the government now has two Liberal appointees on the board of directors of Suncor, how can he feign ignorance and only wring his hands in dismay?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to address the member and read something to him. It says: "Gasoline prices are set by competitive prices in the marketplace. Obviously, those guys over there do not believe in the free marketplace. Government intervention is their answer to everything. Big Brother has to be involved in every facet of our lives."

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That was said by the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind the members that they are wasting their own time. I can stand here as long as they want.

Mr. Runciman: I believed that then, I believe it now and I have not suggested government intervention. I want to say --

Mr. Speaker: You want to ask.

Mr. Runciman: It is interesting to learn what this minister's highly paid staff are doing. They are going through dusty files of 1981 speeches instead of dealing with the real issues that are of concern to this province. That is what he is doing with his staff.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that your question or is that what the staff is doing? Quickly with the supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: It is apparent that this minister has been duped and conned even by his own company. Yesterday, he implied he would do nothing more. Why will the minister not follow the advice of his Premier (Mr. Peterson), as outlined in a release last year, and order an immediate investigation and legislate prior disclosure of increases to stop this collusion and ripoff of Ontario consumers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member liked the last one, he will love this one. I quote again: "Again, it is a question of protecting consumers. We in Ontario do not regulate the price of gasoline. The price of gasoline at the pump is a matter of free market principles, and although that might offend the philosophy of the member, that is the situation." That, by the way, was by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

Mr. Runciman: This minister is a joke and nothing less than a joke. He is treating this whole House with contempt. He will not even deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: The minister has a sorry history of dealing with this issue, which is a crucial one. He has ignored my calls for action on Imperial Oil's moves to end dealer support. He has been made to look foolish by the oil companies. Now he has been rabbit-punched by Suncor. Will the minister finally take charge of this issue in a serious manner and order a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have a final quotation; it is dated May 20, 1983, and in effect says, "If the member is suggesting we hold a public inquiry, I think he is talking about wasting taxpayers' money by such duplication." That was by the Honourable Bob Elgie.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going to recess for five minutes.

The House recessed at 2:40 p.m.

2:45 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations after the brief medical interlude. He should be aware that he has said some funny things too. He did not say them a long time ago; he said them during the past couple of days.

I will quote him from the Toronto Star of May 27: "My concern is, they say" -- presumably "they" are the oil companies -- "the price of oil has gone up and cheap inventories are running low. That doesn't square with what they said before."

In the Toronto Sun of May 26 he is quoted as having said: "When the price goes up like that overnight, it doesn't seem right to me."

With these rather sad, plaintive comments he has made, can the minister tell us precisely what he intends to do to protect the consumers of this province from being gouged?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I listened with interest to the member of the third party, and he stated that I had said some pretty funny things. The statements he quoted were not funny at all. I am really quite concerned.

The member should understand that the oil companies claim it takes 75 to 100 days for oil to go through the system. As a result of that, by the end of April or the beginning of May, we should have seen the effects of low-cost oil. The prices did drop down to 36 cents or 37 cents per litre. They have now shot up suddenly.

I am very concerned about that. If the member opposite will look at the statements I made in the House yesterday and the quotes, he will see I am looking into it. I have asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) to check with Suncor, where we have some interest; we do not have a controlling interest, and we do not have absolute control. But I am very concerned about it, and that is why we are making the statements that we are.

Mr. Rae: My question was, what is the minister going to do? He should know that a spokesman for Imperial Oil was reported recently in the Globe and Mail as having said, "I think somebody decided it was time to come up for air. The industry was losing its shirt before prices were raised."

Is the minister aware that for the year ended in 1985, Imperial Oil's profits were $634 million, up 19 per cent over 1984? That is a pretty expensive shirt. Some shirt, some neck. Precisely what steps does the minister intend to take to see that prices start to come down? Why does he not have the power to do that right now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not have the power to do that, because we in the province do not regulate the price of fuel.

That being said, the problem is that we are dealing with companies that are vertically integrated. We have no way of knowing whether they use creative accounting methods whereby they allocate charges upstream or downstream, and that is the thing I am looking into.

I have asked Pat Carney, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to look into it. I have asked Michel Côté, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to see whether anything can be done under the Combines Investigation Act. That is the jurisdiction. That is where we are addressing our concern.

Mr. Swart: The minister may have made the Tories make an ass out of themselves, but that does not bring him any credit on what is happening to gasoline prices in this province.

Now that he has criticized the two-cent increase and said the federal government and the oil companies should take some form of concrete action, is that not in itself an admission on his part that competition is not working? If it is not, why does the minister not intervene and protect the consumers of Ontario?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises an interesting point, but so far in all the debate, not one person has been able to tell me the pricing is not justified. I am not saying it is, but no one in either party on the other side has said to me that those prices are not justified. We are trying to find out whether they are justified.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to ask the Treasurer about Ontario's involvement with corporations that are doing extensive business in South Africa.

Bishop Tutu will be addressing this Legislature on Friday. So far, we have had from the government no basic statement of policy on South Africa. We have had no indication of the steps that are going to be taken on the Ontario municipal employees retirement system. We have had no indication of what is going to be done with respect to the Ontario Hospital Association and hospitals that are purchasing from South Africa.

Are we going to get such a statement from this government? Does the Treasurer not realize that in the absence of that statement, the government, if I may say so, looks pretty silly inviting the bishop to speak to this assembly and to this Legislature? The government has not done all it could do to make the kind of statement that I know members would want to make with respect to South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member and his colleagues have placed three questions to ministers and to the Premier on this important matter.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) answered yesterday that no South African tobacco is imported into Ontario or used in the Ontario market. Rothmans has given us its assurance that this is the case. It is the only one that might have been involved.

Second, the member himself referred to Dominion Securities Pitfield and McLeod Young Weir doing business with South Africa. I am informed that those two companies were part of a syndicate selling some bonds or financial certificates for a German bank. They had less than one tenth of one per cent. Those sales were completed in 1984. As a matter of policy, they inform us they do no such business, either here or elsewhere, at present.

There was reference also to the OMERS board. The information we have is that in the extensive holding of the board -- and they are very large holdings indeed -- there are some securities associated with businesses that have investments in South Africa. I am informed the OMERS board is reviewing its policy in that regard.

I want to make it clear that the policy of this government, as enunciated by the Premier at the time he indicated we were no longer buying products from South Africa for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, is not to do business as a government.

Mr. Rae: With respect to OMERS, it is not simply a question of a few securities; it is a question of investments in both Canadian companies and, with respect, American companies that are doing significant business with South Africa. The Treasurer should know that.

What is the position of the government of Ontario? What is the Treasurer's position with respect to OMERS since he, as I understand it, was asked specifically by the Premier in the House to undertake the investigation and to make a declaration on the position of the government of Ontario? Has the Treasurer directed OMERS to take steps to divest itself of those shares and securities? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let us deal with the other matter first. My information has been presented to the Premier, as he requested. If he had been here today, he might have been able to bring it to the member's attention in response to the question, but I cannot speak for him. The requested information has been placed in the Premier's hands as of today.

The whole matter of OMERS is not as clear as the member would have the House believe. There is a clear legal opinion that we can control OMERS only through the appointment of board members. I suppose that is a good way to control indirectly, but the board is in place at present. It has indicated it is reviewing its investments. I expect the board to make a report to me, to the Premier and to the House when that information is available.

Mr. Rae: The chairman of the OMERS board has been quoted as saying the divestiture of South African-related holdings could take up to four or five years. Is the Treasurer aware of that statement, and can he explain why that would be the case with respect to shares that are saleable at any time?

We have gone through the shares that are listed on the stock exchange, and OMERS would realize a very substantial profit from simply divesting itself of those shares today. Only three of the stocks are selling below the price at which they were purchased.

Would the Treasurer not agree that profiting from apartheid has gone on long enough and that a policy of divestiture on the part of OMERS and other publicly controlled pension funds and a clear policy with respect to hospitals is entirely in order now?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was not aware of the comment made by the chairman. As the chairman of the group that has the trusteeship over those investments, he might be concerned that by dumping them in that way, the price might not be as good as it otherwise would be. However, as I say, the review that has been undertaken will surely report on that point of view as well.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On January 4, 1985, his leader issued a press release saying fuel prices were a ripoff. It went on to say:

"The current fuel price increase demonstrates the need for Ontario to consider requiring prior disclosure by the oil companies when they intend to raise prices. Such a disclosure process would allow the Ontario government and the public an opportunity to examine and make input into the decisions on the important matter of fuel pricing."

My question of the minister is a simple one. Does he still endorse the proposal put forward by his leader on January 4, 1985?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In principle, I do. The problem we have, as members of all parties will know, because they have all been quoted as saying it, is that the price is set in the marketplace. The story the oil companies have -- and I am not defending them, because I do not know whether it is true, and that is what I am trying to find out -- is that the prices in Metro have been unduly depressed because of a price war and that their prices now are where they should be, reflecting their lower cost of fuel.

I do not know whether they can justify that, and I have no way of finding out just by asking them, because all I can do is take their word for it. That is what we are trying to find out.

Mr. Grossman: The minister indicates he has no way of finding out the true story. That was precisely the thrust of his leader's press release on January 4, which was that no one has a way of knowing what is happening without a review such as the one conducted by Nova Scotia's Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities.

If the minister is as concerned as he said he has been in the past few weeks and if he is so determined to "make noises and get the prices down," surely he will agree that he must know what is going on and surely he will agree to stand by -- not in principle but in fact -- the press release of January 4, 1985. Does he or does he not stand by this? Is he going to follow this?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I said, I do in principle.

Two things happen. First, the Ministry of Energy has the analysts and the people who can take a look at that figure and see whether there is any justification. It is very difficult because of the vertical integration of the industry. Second, the member refers to Nova Scotia, which has legislation; and notwithstanding that legislation, has the highest-priced fuel in Canada.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Charlton: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that as a result of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl and as a result of new information released last week that showed the safety features on the Chernobyl reactor are much more extensive than originally reported, major reviews are being undertaken in the United States, not only of new nuclear power stations but also of existing and operating power plants. Can the minister tell the House what plans he has to review the nuclear program in Ontario with a view to determining the safety of our reactors?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That initiative was taken a good long time ago when the safety of our reactors was put on the plate of the special committee. I am sure if the member reads that report, he will find Candu reactors are among the safest in the world by comparison. After the experience we have had worldwide, I am not suggesting we are not going to take a second look and make absolutely certain there has not been any movement from that situation.

What might be said also is that the reactor at Chernobyl could not have been licensed in Canada. I think that says a great deal about the Atomic Energy Control Board in Ottawa as another measure of making certain of the safety of the reactors here in Canada.

Mr. Charlton: The minister should be aware that it is unlikely the Pickering reactor would now be licensed in Canada.

In view of the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States now believes that the likelihood of a major meltdown accident in the US in the next 20 years is about 50 per cent, and in view of the fact that we have never had a major study of the nuclear power program in Ontario by experts, when will the minister make up his mind to look into the nuclear safety of our reactors?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have no quarrel about looking into the questions raised by the honourable member. I have no reason to defend the Candu reactors in Ontario in any way beyond a reasonable assessment of the circumstances. The major number of Candu reactors are in Ontario and they generate about 9,000 megawatts of power that go into our grid, which is a little better than a third right now.

The member makes a good point. We will continue to monitor and take direction from all members in this Legislature on what we should be doing to make absolutely certain Candu reactors are as safe as can be.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Ms. Fish: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week, after his government tested two apples, with 300 million apples produced in this province each year, he assured this House there was no problem with dioxin, even though Kate Davies indicated the contrary in the Toronto Board of Health's report. Will the minister take these two Ontario McIntosh apples from me and put them in for testing to double his sample and for the first time take seriously the testing of dioxin in foodstuff in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The previous Minister of the Environment is well aware that it is impossible to have perfectly pure food in this world. She knows there have probably been dioxins in our atmosphere ever since man first rubbed two sticks together. The honourable member is aware that dioxin is a product of combustion and is found everywhere in the world in our atmosphere.

I find it somewhat peculiar that the previous Minister of the Environment would criticize my staff for taking the initiative to test foods for dioxin when that very same Minister of the Environment never conducted one test for dioxin on any food product.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: We also import a lot of apples into Ontario, and I have two imported apples. What information does the minister have on the contamination of such apples? Will he now triple the size of his study and see what confidence he can give the people of Ontario with this size of sample?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am pleased the honourable member raised the concern we have about the importation of commodities from outside the jurisdiction which may have been treated with some kind of chemical that we do not allow in this country. There is no question the report of Dr. Davies can be held to question somewhat, because we are not certain the apples tested out of the grocery stores here in Ontario are Ontario-produced apples. We strongly suspect the apples tested were imported from outside this province.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the polychlorinated biphenyls at Westinghouse's Beach Road plant in Hamilton. He has not been very aggressive about fatalities, and we will find he has been even less aggressive in the prosecution of toxic substances.

Since the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) provides protective equipment and respirators for workers who are working around PCB spills, can the minister tell me why it took his staff three months after the initial complaint by the union in August 1984 to get even an acknowledgement of the problem, another four months to get in there, do the testing and give the results to the workers, and a year after that to force the company to comply with an order, which had with the word "forthwith" on it and which has been ignored to this very day?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: According to the honourable member's question, this matter started back in 1984. Obviously, this government was not in power then and I was not minister then. As the member knows, in those days these orders were reissued.

I note the member talked about a "forthwith" order. I will check into the matter and find out about it. It appears the matter either should have been dealt with by a specific compliance date, as is now done when the order cannot be complied with forthwith, or it should have been complied with forthwith. I want to give the member a complete and full answer.

Mr. Martel: When the minister is doing that, will he look at the time when he did become responsible? Is he aware that on March 7, 1986, one of his inspectors recommended that a notice of intent under section 37 of the act for noncompliance be proceeded with? That means prosecution, but it has been in the works for some months now. Since that time, having given the notice, he still has not decided whether he will prosecute. At the same time as he looks at that, will he tell me why the 20 workers who have cancer, 13 of whom have died, have not received or are not receiving compensation benefits?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On the second part of the question, we are back to the same matters we were discussing last week. I can refer that matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for an answer. It would have to be found that the matters are compensable because they occurred in the course of and arising out of their employment. The honourable member and I would agree that is the basis on which they must be found.

As far as prosecutions are concerned, the member knows very clearly what the prosecution policy is. He has a copy of it. Matters move forward, and I agree with the member's date. Notice was given under section 37 on March 7, 1986. I am sure the member would agree with me that if an information were sworn, it would be most appropriate that the first people to know would be those it was sworn against. I do not intend to discuss the status of prosecutions in this House until such time as informations are sworn, but given the volume that is coming forward to our legal branch, I will indicate to the member that some two months for the matter to work its way up the line is not an inappropriate amount of time.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has a response to a question previously asked by a member.

GASOLINE PRICES

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: In response to a question last week from the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) about announcing the date and location for public forums to discuss the north-south gas price issue, they are: June 16, Kirkland Lake; June 17, Sault Ste. Marie; June 18, Chapleau; June 19, Sudbury; June 20, North Bay; June 23, Thunder Bay; June 24, Kenora; and June 25, Red Lake. Staff of my ministry and the Ministry of Energy will be on hand at each session. In addition, I will be attending a meeting of the Northeast Municipal Action Group in Timmins on May 31 for a discussion of this topic.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister indicate who the hearing officer or officers will be? What are the exact terms of reference of the task force, if that is what it is? Can the minister assure the House that after he has these hearings, his ministry and this government will take action to lower the price of gasoline in northern Ontario and not simply take the attitude of his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) with regard to the price of gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I will have to come back with an answer to the other questions because the member asked me only about the dates. I do not know the terms of reference by heart and I do not know the names of the officials. I will get back to the member on this one. I wish the member would participate in those open-house meetings to give his 10 or 15 years of experience in the House fighting the high price of gasoline in the north.

COURTHOUSES

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General. In North Bay, an urgent situation exists at the district courthouse. The building is falling down and has been condemned every year for the past five years. Our government committed to the building of a $12-million new facility which was to commence in the spring of 1985, which the Attorney General well knows. The minister's colleague, however, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Ms. Caplan) cancelled that contract. Later in 1985, the Attorney General confirmed that the building would commence within fiscal year 1985-86. It has not commenced. Will the Attorney General now advise this House of his updated timetable to his commitment to the people of North Bay?

Hon. Mr. Scott: This is my commitment, as the honourable member knows, to the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). I have responded to this question from time to time. The fiscal year in which we indicated the exercise would commence is not yet completed. What has happened is that in order to meet the desire of some citizens of North Bay who are anxious to preserve the old courthouse as an historic building, as it is, they are looking at whether it can be incorporated within the design of the new courthouse. That question has to be determined before the project goes ahead. We hope to have the answer very shortly on whether it can be incorporated. If it can, we hope it will be; if it cannot, we will proceed.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister knows well that the commitment was to a new court facility to commence in 1985 and he has not done so. Let us try another courthouse. In St. Thomas, victims, witnesses and the accused await their trials in a small hearing room 15 feet by 15 feet.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will get my notes out. Not so fast.

Mr. O'Connor: Page 26 in the briefing book. There is no police protection for victims and witnesses, who must occupy the same room with the accused. Witness intimidation, in fact, fist fights occasionally break out in this room. What timetable has the minister for the people of St. Thomas to alleviate this very serious problem in that city?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I could not hear the question, so my answer is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the timetable for the St. Thomas facility?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The St. Thomas facility is an old, historic courthouse, as are all the courthouses for which the Conservative government was entirely responsible. As those who follow these matters will know, we are faced in this province with the fact that almost nothing was done for 35 years to update our courthouse facilities. It may not be pleasant but it is true. We have speeded up our capacity to respond to these needs, so we will be able to make more courthouse starts every year than our predecessors ever did and we will be able to make more renovation starts than our predecessors ever did.

Mr. Grossman: That is not true. The Liberals have done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is no point in trying to answer the question if they will not listen.

Mr. Speaker: Then I will call for a new question.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Treasurer in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The Treasurer will be aware of the slap in the face Prime Minister Mulroney received from his good buddy Mr. Reagan with the devastating 35 per cent tariff on western cedar products, almost on the day free trade talks were to start.

I think the Treasurer is also aware of the irrefutable evidence that Canada's social policies, as well as the auto pact, are on the table. Is the Treasurer prepared to reverse his government's endorsation of the Mulroney initiative and end this very dangerous charade Mr. Mulroney is engaged in?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The policy of the government is to support any initiative that is going to improve and enhance our trading relations with the United States and other trading partners.

The Premier, more than anyone else, has pointed out the pitfalls and problems associated with the concept of free trade and its negotiation. At the first ministers' meeting in Halifax soon after this government took office, he brought forward his concerns on behalf of the manufacturing industry, the agricultural industry, the resource industry and those industries associated with finance, culture and other aspects of Canadian endeavour that in many respects find their principal manifestation in this province.

He has indicated clearly through reports he has tabled that employment levels will be seriously jeopardized. I do not think the honourable member or anyone else can place him among those who are enthusiastically supporting the federal initiative in this regard.

Mr. Mackenzie: One has to wonder then why his members endorsed the initiative in the interim report. Since the Premier clearly understands the devastation that could be caused in Ontario by the auto pact being on the table, and before these so-called bilateral talks expose any more sore points between our two countries, will the Treasurer end his party's charade of pretending in this House that he will not accept a bad deal, release unedited all the studies he has, and provide the leadership Canadian people want, to end the stupidity of the bilateral trade talks continuing in Washington?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not aware that the Premier of this province or any other has the power to veto initiatives taken by the federal government. In statements I heard made by the Prime Minister himself at Halifax, he indicated that the negotiators for Canada would be in close consultation with the representatives of the provinces.

One of the things the Premier is insisting on -- and I am not speaking for him, to say whether he is satisfied, and I doubt whether he is -- is that this close consultation take place. As the member says, it was a slap in the face to everyone when we realize that this special duty was slapped on by presidential authority on the very day the discussions began.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Last Thursday the member for Sudbury East asked a number of questions concerning prosecutions under the act. It appears that the numbers he mentioned refer to prosecutions arising out of the activities of the industrial health and safety branch during the fiscal year that just ended.

During that period of time, there were 75 cases in which charges were laid and 56 in which convictions were obtained. However, in the 75 cases, a total of 292 charges was laid. Typically, the legal branch may lay more than one charge arising out of any incident, but when the matter comes to trial, it is possible to obtain a conviction on only one charge because of the legal principle that a person cannot receive convictions arising out of the same transaction.

At the same time, the honourable member asked why a union witness was not called to testify in the Perley Hospital case. I advise the House that there were extensive communications between the ministry and the union prior to the trial. The union wrote to the ministry describing its understanding of the relevant facts and supplied it with two witnesses' statements. Both witnesses recommended by the trade union, as well as others, were called at the trial.

TAXI LICENSING

Mr. Gregory: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and is in regard to his statement in the House on December 19, 1985, that he would proceed with an amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act affecting airport taxicabs and limousines.

I am aware that the minister, in a meeting with the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion, on April 22, 1986, indicated he was not going ahead with the proposed amendment. However, I have a letter signed by the minister, dated May 12, 1986, in response to my letter of some three months earlier indicating he is proceeding with the proposed amendment.

Is the minister or is he not proceeding with the legislation, or do we have to read between the lines, as he has answered on previous occasions?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am quite aware of the letter the member is referring to, but I would like him to read all of the letter, not two or three lines. I guaranteed the mayor of Mississauga that I would not proceed with the present legislation until I had received a report from Mississauga, from the city of Toronto and from Metro as well.

Mr. Gregory: The minister seems to be doing one of these moon walks, where he moves rapidly backward while appearing to move forward. Which way is it? I am very clear on the impression he gave Mayor Hazel McCallion. I am also very clear on what he said in his letter. Is he or is he not? Whichever way he decides, will he guarantee to me that he will consider the opinions of the city of Mississauga and not just restrict himself to the opinions of the council of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member is very badly misinformed. Let me reassure the member that I have already met with the mayor of Mississauga on two different occasions. I spoke to her last Friday. I have met with the city of Toronto. I have met with Metro, the taxi industry, the livery people and the limousine people. The member was the only one who did not attend a meeting.

Let me tell him I did consult my people and also the representatives of Metro from his own party. Consultation is still going on, but he is badly misinformed.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister is telling me I did not attend any of these meetings. No, I did not, because he did not have the courtesy to invite me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege. It may be a point of information.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Landfill site 3 in the township of Maidstone has been operating under a certificate issued by the Ministry of the Environment. The certificate specifies that the depth for burying garbage in that landfill site is 10 feet and that the height is to be 20 feet above ground, but the garbage has been buried 28 feet deep and has been piled 42 feet above ground level. It is obvious that the Ministry of the Environment has condoned this action and has also allowed toxic waste to be dumped in that site. What action is the Minister of the Environment going to take with the people in his ministry responsible for allowing these violations to take place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In reference to that site, the landfill site 3 committee is committed to conducting thorough tests of the landfill site to determine what toxic chemicals, if any, are present. That commitment has been made. In addition, the ministry will conduct its own sampling and analysis as a means of auditing the county's program in that regard.

The member will know that, during the construction of bore holes, pockets of sand were found. The potential impact the sand will have on ground waters is being assessed by the consultants and by ministry staff to determine precisely what the effect will be. My ministry is investigating the situation. If conditions warrant, we are prepared to press charges.

Mr. Hayes: I think the minister is trying to answer the question that I believe I asked on May 12. The minister has just mentioned he is aware of the problems concerning toxic substances and also the discovery of sand seams. Now there is a move on to --

Mr. Speaker: Now there is a move on to the question.

Mr. Hayes: -- dump sewage sludge in this site in the township of Maidstone. Will the minister take immediate action to ward off any move to dump raw sewage in this site?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member for that question because it draws an important additional fact to our attention. I will be pleased to investigate that at the earliest opportunity, which is today, and report back to the member.

MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING BUREAU

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. As the minister is well aware, the motor vehicle licensing bureau in the village of Erin has been closed. The Erin Downtown Business Association and the municipal council have requested that the ministry give consideration to reopening this office, which has served Erin and the area for many years. Will the minister reconsider his decision to close this office if it can be demonstrated there is substantial community support for the need for this bureau in the village of Erin?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As it is our practice and policy to attempt to support all the local communities in Ontario, the answer is yes, we will reconsider if it can be shown to be financially viable.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Will the minister then accept the petition I hold in my hand as a demonstration of the community's support? This petition contains the signatures of more than 1,500 residents of Erin and the surrounding area, requesting that the bureau be reopened and expressing very serious concerns that the quality of life in this rural community will deteriorate if this essential service is not restored.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the member's question is whether I will accept the petition. Of course, I will accept the petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I am sure all the members will have been very interested in the course of the past couple of days to hear the Minister of the Environment tell the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the press and the United Nations environmental commission that he hopes by the end of this session of the Legislature to have in place stiffer fines and stronger penalties against those who pollute the environment. I would like the minister to tell the House when we might expect to see that legislation and participate in the discussions he is having.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I have indicated to the member -- I think it was in the House, and I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong; she usually lets me know if I am wrong -- my recollection is that I have indicated on many occasions, including in this House, that I will be bringing forward this legislation in this session of the Legislature.

The member will know as well that these pieces of legislation must go through various cabinet committees in order that they may be assessed from a regulations point of view; for instance, the regulations committee, the justice committee and the economic policy committee. There are a number of committees that legislation of this kind must go through.

We will see it this session, and I hope next month.

Mrs. Grier: If the minister is having difficulty in persuading his cabinet colleagues to accept his legislation, I wish he would share that with the House and we will do what we can to help him.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mrs. Grier: All legislation requires approval of various committees on the government side. Will the minister explain to the House why there are now 41 pieces of government legislation pending before this House and not one of them has stemmed from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I want to clarify this because the member misinterpreted what I said, but not deliberately. I think she drew a conclusion from my answer and it was not an accurate conclusion. There is outstanding, tremendous and unanimous support in this cabinet for this legislation. For that reason, I can assure the member that we will see this legislation this session, and I think she will be pleased with it.

In regard to a number of other environmental matters, she will understand also that much of what we can do -- for instance, the acid rain program we brought in, if I can give one small example -- is done by regulation and does not require legislation. She will find that in many areas we are able to move without legislation. This is one that requires legislation, and members are going to see it soon.

DRIVER ROAD TESTS

Mr. Villeneuve: On Wednesday, April 30, my colleague the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) requested that the Minister of Transportation and Communications act promptly to reduce the waiting time of up to four months for driver road tests. What has the minister done in the past four weeks to help clean up the backlog of road tests in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As recently as this morning, I met with my staff to review the practices and policies involving the licence issuing agents and agencies. In response to the previous question, it is not all that easy to find people. When I toured the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, among the municipalities I talked to -- I think there were 19 in that riding -- it is interesting to note that none of them brought this concern to our attention. However, I assure the honourable member I will personally take it upon myself to address the issue he has raised.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a very serious problem. There are backlogs of up to four months. Will the minister please assure this House today that he will ensure no one has to wait more than 30 days to have a road test?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With respect, the waiting period there and in any other location in this province is not something we created in the past 10 or 11 months. It is clearly a matter that should have been addressed by the previous administration. I can assure the member that because of my interest in the issue, I went and toured the riding on the weekend. We will undertake to examine his request.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Barlow: I wish to table a petition which reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario: "We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) will listen to these petitions and stop being arrogant and unresponsive to the public.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to tell members that the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) was quite disturbed that no one was paying attention to him. I am sure all members will not carry on with their private conversations.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to present a petition on behalf of the Niagara Coalition on Public Education respecting funding of the public school system in Ontario.

NOISE BARRIERS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 72 people which reads:

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

"We, the undersigned, having suffered from excessive noise and dirt as a result of the building of the Conestoga Expressway, ask that noise barriers be built from Frederick Street to Ottawa Street by the spring of 1986 at the very latest."

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 33 people which reads:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition that the continued operation within the city of Toronto at the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic for the stated purpose of performing unlawful abortions is an affront to the law-abiding citizens of Ontario who presume that the Criminal Code, provision section 251, enacted by the federal House, was meant to be obeyed; and that the visible lack of enforcement of this provision is seriously eroding the protection of the Criminal Code affords all citizens of Canada.

"Permitting such privileged selection in the enforcement of the Criminal Code is seen to jeopardize our basic rights as Canadian citizens living in Ontario and we petition therefore that the Morgentaler Clinic be closed."

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that membership on the select committee on economic affairs be as follows:

Mr. D. R. Cooke, chairman, Messrs. Bennett, Cordiano, Ferraro, Knight, Mackenzie, McFadden, McGuigan, Morin-Strom, Taylor and Miss Stephenson.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on economic affairs be authorized to sit on Thursday mornings in the place of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs until the select committee has completed its report as prescribed by the committee's terms of reference dated July 10, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Barlow moved first reading of Bill 45, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Barlow: This bill will require a secret ballot vote for certification of a trade union in all cases where the Ontario Labour Relations Board is satisfied that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of a trade union.

The act now does not require secret ballot and provides that the board has discretion to decide whether to call a vote where it is satisfied that more than 55 per cent of the employees are members of the union.

My proposed amendment will provide also that a strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement taken by a trade union shall be by ballots cast in such a manner that a person expressing his choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed.

The Labour Relations Act of Ontario does not stipulate that union members must have the right to vote as a precondition to the right to strike. The decision as to whether a strike vote will be called generally remains with the union executive and is governed by the internal constitution and bylaws of the union.

Similarly, the internal constitution and bylaws of the union govern whether union members will be asked to vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement. Although the general practice in Ontario is to put the issue to a membership vote, the constitution and bylaws of the union --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the member that the standing orders gives a member an opportunity to make a very brief comment or description of what is in the bill, not to debate it.

3:40 p.m.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that yesterday the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) gave notice that she was dissatisfied with the answer to a question given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). This matter will be debated tonight at 6:30.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 158, 159, 191, 199, 201, 202, 203, 208, 213 and the interim answers to questions 160, 215 and 257 standing on the Orders and Notices paper and the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 24.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Jackson: When I was last speaking in the chamber on this subject, I made reference to some input I had received from my 11-week-old daughter with respect to some of the expenses incurred in the province that are not necessarily being addressed by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). I brought a list of those with me today. In the interests of time, I will not read it, but I will provide it to the Treasurer in the hope he will examine this list of items that are essential to the health, general welfare and comfort of the babies in this province.

I would also like to raise the issue of child care or day care, which has not been given adequate treatment in the budget that was tabled in this House. Although I do not suspect my daughter will be a candidate for child care services in this province for many years, it would appear by the presentation of this government in this budget that is about when it will have completed its commitment not only to increase the number of subsidized child care spaces in the province but also to develop a comprehensive plan on the future direction of all families in the province.

I want to focus briefly on the concerns raised by the council of Burlington. On behalf of its taxpayers, that council has done quite a good job of keeping mill increases to a minimum level over the years. There were sacrifices and tough decisions made to achieve that. Therefore, it is a little difficult to understand why, for instance, we keep getting turned down by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) for badly needed road improvements when provincial expenditures are going up about double the rate of inflation, yet it is evident the transfers to municipalities will not be keeping up with that pace.

Last year I asked the minister for special funding for a project put on by Burlington Transit that operated during the holiday season. The minister rejected that plan outright, yet it would have contributed to the safety of persons who generally consume alcohol at that time of year. The plan was to take them off the road and use public transit systems. We suggested this was a worthwhile plan for all municipalities in the province. Again, we see no indication in this budget that projects of this nature will be taken seriously by this minister.

Transit grants to municipalities may be up from last year, but they are still $22 million less than they were in the 1984-85 budget. It seems very likely that our school boards and postsecondary institutions will be treated somewhat similarly in that they will not be able to anticipate increases beyond their basic operating grant increases, despite a banner year for provincial spending. Local authorities will have to continue getting by on these barely sufficient funds.

All this is in spite of an apparent $300-million fund created for pre-election expenditures, we have to believe, and a further $800 million in windfall revenues the government will pick up if the economy performs as it is expected to do rather than as the Treasurer thinks it might. This is money that can go a long way towards fulfilling some previous commitments or towards establishing the kind of clear direction many people expected, or even, as has been suggested by almost every speaker on this side of the House, towards paying down the deficit.

With the reconstruction of the Queen Elizabeth Way in Burlington, a problem has surfaced with regard to increased noise levels. We have waited for six months for a response from the Minister of Transportation and Communications to address this problem. The ministry did a study and it has finally concluded that the sound levels have increased dramatically. Yet it will not put Burlington on a priority list. The ministry has it low on the second-priority list and it suggests that, because of limited funding, it will be unable to assist those families.

Asking senior citizens in the north shore area and Bellview Street who have experienced almost a double increase in the noise level from the Queen Elizabeth to wait 10 years is not proper and not right. They have every right to enjoy reasonable comfort in their declining years. For this reason, we lament the fact that nowhere in this project does the Minister of Transportation and Communications address specific projects of the type I have just described.

We are also all very well aware of the fact that last October the government committed itself to improving GO Transit service to Burlington early in the new year. Now the minister is hedging on that promise. He claims a $1.8-million expenditure is unwarranted for this extension. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimates, which appeared last week, show $74.4 million in capital funding will be approved for provincial transit programs, with $54 million specified for GO train service expansion, yet the minister cannot earmark those dollars in that budget for a promise made last year.

Of course, that in itself should come as no surprise. The children and elderly were promised comprehensive programs; they were shortchanged. A promised $25 million for increased youth programs under the Ministry of Skills Development is not there. A few more people will get reduced Ontario health insurance plan premiums next year. Then again, we notice in the budget that there will be an increase in total revenues from OHIP premiums. That is because employment is operating at a fuller capacity, a capacity, I might add, that may not always exist. Therefore, what has been given away as a benefit in this budget will come back and be a compounded expenditure in future years if we do not have accelerated employment growth in our economy.

This budget reiterates the promises of more housing for the province. It repeats the promises of last December of 5,000 new Renterprise units and pledges the spending of $500 million over the next five years. Burlington was among the initial municipalities on the Renterprise allotment list, and it was to receive 100 units this year. I have seen no project announcements, even though it is now late May, nor have I seen the construction of these units, in case the announcements had been slipped through by the minister.

The waiting list for affordable housing, however, is not standing as still as this program is. It is still badly needed in Burlington, where the vacancy rate is less than one per cent, as it is in many areas of this province.

Last year as well, the minister promised us a revitalization of the Ontario home renewal plan, which was one of his top priorities. In December, he said he was not planning to put any new money into it but was bent on uncovering all the unused OHIP money in the province and reallocating it where it would be put to use.

3:50 p.m.

Burlington has a lengthy waiting list for these funds. There are about 40 families waiting for assistance. We would have liked to have seen some of that reallocation money this year, since people often end up dropping off the waiting list, unable to hold off renovations any longer. Nowhere in the budget were these moneys specifically flagged, nor did we get a commitment from the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling).

In December, the same minister said he had plans for finding the money. Just recently, we got letters advising us he is now getting around to asking if any of those municipalities have that additional money sitting in their bank accounts. That is five months after he advised this House he would be pursuing that immediately. He waited five months.

The people of Burlington are used to seeing action, in the great tradition of George Ken. If this is the way housing priorities are going to be treated, I fear we are going to hear in the next budget that $500 million will be spent on housing in the next four years and so on, until we end up with one-year crash building programs promoted by this government. I would not be surprised if that corresponded with an election.

Promises do not get any better through repetition. In construction, bricks and mortar build better housing than the words we are hearing from the Minister of Housing. The people of Burlington South would like to see some action in housing for a change. They would like to hear about the housing being built, not from their car radios, as two families had to do two months ago when they were unable to get assisted housing or rental housing anywhere in the city of Burlington. They had to seek it in the town of Oakville. They spent several nights in their car, listening to their car radio to get the news. They would have liked to have been in their living room watching the news on television.

Much has been stated in the House today about the problem of rising gasoline prices and the amount of revenue that is being generated by our Treasurer. I would like to point out a statement made by David Perry of the Canadian Tax Foundation, who quoted how much the province would earn in this windfall. If Ontario had kept the previous tax in place, its gasoline tax revenues would have declined with oil prices, allowing consumers to hold on to an extra $200 million. That is $200 million which this Treasurer failed to correct and failed to pass on to the consumers of this province. He had an opportunity in this budget to undo what he did in his first and previous budget.

Mr. McLean: That is why they are so unhappy at Earl's Shell.

Mr. Jackson: I know the people are unhappy at Earl's Shell. Once one turns the corner from Earl's Shell, one has to go to the local doctor in Brant county, and he is unhappy. One cannot stop there, so one has to go down the road to the local pharmacy. The Treasurer cannot go in because they are angry with him there. Then he will go by the latest post-secondary education institution near his riding, and they are angry at him for underfunding. However, he always returns to Earl's Shell because Earl is such a compassionate person. Earl happens to be one of the most famous dispensers of gas in the province, and for that he pays dearly.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He has competition: Sam's Full Service.

Mr. Jackson: Sam's Full Service? That is going to be a mouthful. I am sure the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) will advise us that he cannot correct the problem of rising gas prices because of the competition between Earl and Sam; it is driving profits down and as a result, the price of gas will have to rise in some fashion to compensate for that.

I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the people of Burlington South expected better from this budget. They wanted to see a government that would chart a definite course for the future with plans for the long-term economic health and security of this province, not only for today's citizens but also for future citizens. Nowhere do we see that according to this political agenda. They wanted a government that showed itself capable of responsible fiscal management.

The greatest loss for a legislator in public life is the loss of an opportunity to improve on our prosperity. The people of Burlington South regret that this government willingly let go an opportunity in this budget to ensure Ontario's continued prosperity.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I rise only because of my high regard for the honourable member who spoke. He was good enough to compliment me last October for removing the sales tax on car seats, for rather personal reasons. He was so enthusiastic, and knowing his propensity, I thought I would look at the cost of removing the sales tax on Pampers next year to see whether we could win him over permanently.

I thought I would also mention his reference to his concern about responsible fiscal management. I believe the budget does achieve that, in that we have reduced the cash requirements by close to $600 million, easily $100 million more than the amount of revenue that was not predicted from the previous budget. The honourable member will know that in the previous budget, the combination of 2.4 per cent real growth and inflation made for a projected revenue increase of about $1.6 billion.

In the event, and as we approach a more prosperous year, we expect the all-in growth to be about eight per cent. With no new taxes, that should leave an improvement in our revenue of slightly more than $2 billion. The windfall, if I may call it that, is between $400 million and $500 million, and more than that was dedicated and allocated to the reduction of our cash requirement.

At the same time, the member should be aware that we have made a substantial planning commitment of $850 million in new money to hospital renovation and construction, including our cancer treatment facilities. This year we have also allocated $100 million to a high-tech fund that we believe will stimulate our industries and our universities in worldwide competition.

Mr. Jackson: I appreciate the lecture from the Treasurer on his understanding of economics. However, I remind him that since he assumed his most important office, we have seen an unprecedented expansion of the civil service, something on which the previous government made a strong commitment not only because it was fiscally sound but also because that is what the public was telling us.

I do not accept all of the Treasurer's statements with respect to fiscal responsibility when I see he has incorporated into his new budget some new annual operating expenditures for a variety of ministries, expenses this government will never relieve itself of from now until time immemorial.

He talks a bit about this $100-million hightech fund. That is very interesting. If one dismantles the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, takes some of that money and then announces it at the halfway point of the year, one is only using old money, dressing it all up and sending it back out there in the hope the public will see it in a new light.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A very cynical approach to public policy.

Mr. Jackson: The truth is most cynical, as the Treasurer knows. He has even gone so far as to say in this House that he had to suffer many years of it when he was standing in a place similar to mine. However, I had always hoped the minister, with his compassion, would have overcome that and would have seen fit to come straight with the public in terms of what is new money and what is not.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom).

Mr. Breaugh: Do we not get any comments?

The Deputy Speaker: We have already had comments. If the member had been here a little earlier, he would have known that we had finished the comments and the responses.

4 p.m.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the budget. I feel this is a vitally important issue we are facing in the province today. The budget has been laid out by the Treasurer, who takes the position, and I am quoting right from the budget in the second paragraph, that "the outlook for Ontario's economy has improved significantly since my last budget."

To this point, that statement does not refer to the portion of Ontario north of Barrie. Northern Ontario is facing significant economic problems. The economy is improving in southern Ontario. The unemployment rate is going down, the economy is growing in real terms and there is considerable construction in the Toronto area and throughout the Golden Horseshoe. In northern Ontario, we are facing severe economic hardships. It is vitally important that this budget and the economic policies of this government address those problems over the next year.

Under Economic Outlook in the budget address, it states, "Ontario's economy is expected to grow in real terms this year by 4.2 per cent." In northern Ontario, we wish that were so. The Treasurer goes on to say, "We expect to see 175,000 new jobs created in Ontario this year, and the unemployment rate is expected to average 6.9 per cent." In the part of the province I come from, I cannot understand how that can possibly be so. We would like to see the similar figures for northern Ontario.

Over the past few weeks we have seen one action after another in the resource sector and in the major industries upon which so many of the communities in northern Ontario are dependent. We have seen major layoffs and restructuring, as most of those companies refer to it and as has become the terminology of the government.

Most significant in Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma Steel announced its permanent down-sizing program, which will eliminate 1,500 existing jobs. This is on top of a reduction of 3,000 jobs over the years since the recession hit in early 1982 and on top of a reduction in employment, particularly in the tube division of that plant, over the past several months. The reductions over the past months were due to the problems in the oil industry that caused market problems, which have resulted in somewhere between 700 and 1,000 jobs at the plant in terms of short-term market dislocations. On top of those market dislocations, we are seeing the plan to shut down major facilities permanently, which will result in the loss of another 1,500 jobs by the middle of next year.

This is going to have a serious impact on Sault Ste. Marie, an impact we have discussed in this Legislature several times over the past month. I was particularly pleased when the standing committee on resources development came for a two-day session in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa last week, and we addressed these problems. A number of the members of the Legislature had the opportunity to hear at first hand from the company, from the unions, from Algoma Central Railway, which is being severely affected in this situation, from the communities of Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie and from both chambers of commerce.

We heard a number of very good presentations that provided an overview of the situation. Perhaps most stark in its reality was the joint presentation of the Anti-Poverty Coalition, the Unemployed Workers' Council and the Sault and District Labour Council. Their submission at the conclusion of our hearing pointed out the reality of the situations facing individuals and families and older workers facing job dislocation. The submission also pointed out the lack of opportunities in our community for other employment.

Today at Algoma Steel, for those jobs that do not have priority because of a particular department but that are part of the overall labour pool, it requires 17 years' seniority to hang on to a position. This is before these major layoffs. We are going to see many workers with in the order of 20 years' service losing their jobs, probably permanently, in Sault Ste. Marie as a result of this down-sizing action.

In Wawa, we see the potential for at least a major reduction in the level of that operation. The company has hinted there is a possibility it may have to shut down if it cannot get reduced costs on the Algoma Central Railway and in the costs of labour at the Wawa operation, and if its competitive position does not improve compared to ores from Labrador and elsewhere around the world.

Terrace Bay is another serious example. Kimberly-Clark, a major paper producer with head offices in Atlanta, Georgia, has indicated it is looking at totally shutting down that plant, which would result in the loss of 2,000 jobs in Terrace Bay and would virtually close down that community in terms of job opportunities.

We have had the case in Thunder Bay with Great Lakes Forest Products, another major subsidiary of Canadian Pacific, as is Algoma Steel. Great Lakes Forest Products has announced it is making major reductions in its operations and will be shutting its waferboard plant in Thunder Bay.

Just this past week from Timmins, we heard the announcement from Kidd Creek Mines, one of the consistently profitable mines in Ontario and one that was very profitable again this past year, that it is going to be laying off close to 300 workers at the major mining operation in the Timmins area. Again, that was a result of actions by a major multinational, Falconbridge, which purchased Kidd Creek Mines from the Canada Development Corp. and is apparently trying to recover its heavy debt costs and interest expenses. As a result of those additional interest expenses to pay for the debt in buying up that major mine, it is now showing losses on an operation that has historically been one of the most successful mining operations and one of the richest ore bodies in the province.

One of the major initiatives undertaken in the budget address this year was in the area of technology. There was a commitment to a 10-year program, a $1-billion technology fund, which was highly touted in the budget address. However, what is not addressed is what this commitment will do for the resource sector and the major manufacturing industries, such as steel, upon which many northern communities are dependent. We have to have a commitment from this government that technological initiatives will be used to stimulate the creation of new enterprises in northern Ontario related to those products coming out of the north that make sense.

There is desperate need for secondary industry related to the resource sector, to the forest industry and the mining materials produced in the north, which could be manufactured in the north into secondary products, finished consumer products, to provide more jobs where we so desperately need them. There are opportunities there for us to add more value to our resources as we take them out of the ground and out of the forests and to create the jobs we all need.

4:10 p.m.

I hope a major portion of the technology initiative, for which $100 million has been put into the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology this year, will go towards the establishment of technology that will assist northern Ontario, such as technology centres that will be involved in training people, providing research and development of new products and new opportunities, the startup of new, smaller secondary industries in northern Ontario and the stimulation of innovation in terms of new products that are currently not being produced in the Canadian market, but are being imported. We have a severe deficit in our trade balance in finished products. There are major opportunities for us to produce high-value-added finished products. Much of this could be produced out of the resources we are developing in northern Ontario.

It is time we had some initiatives to get new businesses off the ground in the north. If the private sector is not going to do it, it is time for this government to look at putting in public funds to stimulate the opportunities we need in northern Ontario.

The Conservatives speakers in this debate, such as the previous speaker, have said they feel we should be cutting government spending severely and trying to balance the provincial budget. The provincial budget is not severely out of line. We are looking at a deficit of something like $1.5 billion, an insignificant deficit compared to the level of deficit the federal government faces. Now that funds from taxation are increasing because of the level of the economy in southern Ontario, we need to take a major portion of those funds and reallocate them to the development of new businesses and manufacturing enterprises in northern Ontario. If the private sector will not do it, we need the public sector to step in and get those operations off the ground.

Reference was made in the budget under the technology section to the Ontario Development Corp. There was no specific mention of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. We have to wonder whether it is this government's intention gradually to phase out the distinction among the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., which are specific vehicles designed to support new development in northern and eastern Ontario. I believe it is vitally important that NODC receive an expanded funding base and that it be given a mandate to help in the development of new industry in the north.

There is a reference in the budget to employee share ownership plans. I do not think this is a policy that will be in the long-term benefit of employees, that will be of sufficient benefit to stimulate new investment or that will provide improved workers' control over the destiny of their own lives in the operations in which they work.

With employee share ownership plans in the United States, management has been the major beneficiary. These plans do not offer workers any say in how a company is run. One of the most fundamental problems we are facing, particularly in major one-industry towns in the north with large corporations based in Toronto, New York, Atlanta and elsewhere outside northern Ontario, is that they are making decisions affecting the employees and the communities in which they are operated. There is no provision under the plan of the Treasurer to give employees any say in the operation of the plant. In fact, it has to be expected that most of the benefits will go to management level employees who will get tax benefits while they purchase more shares of the corporations they are involved in.

It appears that the ESOP program as currently envisioned will subsidize managers to buy more shares and offer another tax loophole to the wealthy. I believe employee participation and control is one of the basic ways to promote higher productivity, safer work places and the investment needed to ensure job security, but the ESOP promise to reduce employees' paycheques without offering any real control over their work place is likely to turn out to be a farce. The ESOP policy is indicative of what the Liberals mean when they talk about worker participation. The goal is laid out, but the means to achieve it are totally missing in the Treasurer's proposal.

I know the key to the future is co-operative effort to capture the promise of the new technology initiatives that the government has addressed in this paper, but we also have to address the abilities of Ontario's working people. To do this, we must give workers some control over their investment and technology so that their health and safety, their pension fund investment and community development are the responsibility of those who are most concerned, that is, the average Ontarians.

To move on to another subject related to the technology initiative, the section entitled Investing in Education, the Treasurer touts the excellence fund which is to provide up to 500 new faculty positions in Ontario universities. It is time this government looked seriously at the allocation of university and college funds across this province and asked why it is we have no graduate schools of any kind in northern Ontario. Northern Ontario gets well under its share of university funding, with very little funding to support a program such as that.

The two major schools in northern Ontario, Laurentian and Lakehead, operate on funding levels from the provincial government of a little more than $20 million a year. The total amount of university funding for northern Ontario is approximately $50 million. However, if we look at any one of the major schools in southern Ontario, for example, Queen's University, it has a funding level of nearly $90 million going into the community of Kingston. When we look at the economic impact that type of spending provides on a community the size of Kingston and then compare it with the funding that is available to all of northern Ontario, we really have to question what this government is doing.

The northern Ontario development fund is a commitment of $100 million for development in northern Ontario spread over five years, that is, $20 million per year. That total over five years is less than a school such as the University of Waterloo receives each and every year of its existence. That kind of major, ongoing funding for one institution dwarfs the kind of spending by this government that is going on in the north.

It is time the government recognized that a priority has to be placed on supporting the development of northern Ontario. A major portion of that could be a refocusing of educational resources, which I believe are vitally important in stimulating and providing the infrastructure we need for northern development.

It is time we started to look at the need for a medical school in northern Ontario. Why is it that we have never had doctors trained in the north, when we have a shortage of doctors and difficulty in attracting specialists to northern Ontario? If we had a medical school in the north that was training northern physicians, we would have a far better chance of hanging on to those specialists we need.

4:20 p.m.

We need a school of mines and metallurgy in the north. We need a major graduate program in forestry in northern Ontario rather than at the University of Toronto. We could all benefit in the north from a school of social work, which would provide those social scientists so many northern communities need to face the unique social problems in the more isolated communities in the north today and into the future.

In the area of health care, there is also a need for certain specialties. The chamber of commerce in Sault Ste. Marie made a strong presentation to our standing committee on resources development last week with its request that a program in physiotherapy be added to Algoma University College. There is a desperate shortage of physiotherapists, speech therapists and audiologists across northern Ontario. In fact, there is a shortage in the supply or training of those specialists across the whole province. Why not meet that demand by putting a school in northern Ontario to address these specialized areas of therapy?

Algoma University College would be an excellent candidate for something such as that. It receives funding of slightly more than $2 million compared to Queen's University in Kingston, which receives close to $90 million, and many other major schools in southern Ontario, which receive funding of more than $100 million per year.

The schools in the north are insignificant in their size and in what they can do in comparison with the major facilities that have developed over the many years in southern Ontario. This is something that would take time to develop, but it is time we addressed some of these problems and started to make a change in where this government is going to allocate its funds in the future.

Further on in the budget, we have discussion of regions and communities. I see specific mention of Sault Ste. Marie with reference to the community economic transformation agreement. This program will be renewed and broadened in scope. The Treasurer states, "The city of Sault Ste. Marie, which is facing major layoffs at Algoma Steel, is an obvious example." This program will be of importance to northern communities, particularly those depending on single industries that face severe structural adjustment problems.

However, the budget for this program is only $25 million spread over two years. I hope a major portion of this will be made available to Sault Ste. Marie, but I believe that with the number of communities in the north which are facing similar problems with their major employer a much larger initiative will be required to support economic development initiatives in those communities. The $25 million over two years hardly compares with the wages we are seeing lost at Algoma Steel.

I have the Algoma Steel annual report for 1985. The total wages and salaries paid by Algoma Steel in 1985 were $295 million. When we add the full benefits, the total cost of employment at Algoma Steel was $436 million. Based on the number of employees in the Sault, approximately 90 per cent of that would be for wages and benefits paid to employees in Sault Ste. Marie. We are talking about close to $400 million in wages and benefits received by the employees in Sault Ste. Marie. We are seeing a reduction of more than 15 per cent in that work force in this major down-sizing effort. Even 15 per cent of the $400 million would be approximately $60 million in wages and benefits, at least $45 million in direct wages.

That figure completely dwarfs from one community alone, one business alone, in terms of lost income $45 million in lost wages over the next year compared to $25 million spread over two years to cover all those communities facing severe economic dislocations in the province, even given that the majority of those could very well be communities in northern Ontario.

The initiatives talked about include those for northern development. I have already mentioned the $100-million northern development fund spread over five years, of which only $17 million is being dedicated for next year. Again, it is small compared to the lost wages and spinoff effects we are seeing in Sault Ste. Marie.

The Treasurer mentioned $10 million for health care and transportation initiatives in northern Ontario. I suspect a major portion of that is the funding for the medically necessary travel, which we are going to have our first full year of this year. During the last fiscal year, that program was in effect for only four months. There is no indication of a major initiative in that area.

We have mention of $5 million being spent on educational programs in the north. The one initiative we have heard about is the proposed high school for northern Ontario, for which I understand Sault Ste. Marie is a very strong candidate. However, the level of funding for a high school is small in comparison with the level of funding and the economic benefits that would come from a major university program initiated in northern Ontario.

To move on to the health budget, one of the major initiatives of the government was the $850-million fund for major multi-year hospital capital expansion. The $850 million is probably the single largest initiative in this budget, but where is it going? The allocation among the various regions of the province indicates that only $25 million is going to northern Ontario, the area of the province with the highest unemployment, where even construction employees have severe trouble getting employment and a major capital initiative would be of great significance to many northern communities.

That $25 million out of $850 million is about three per cent of the funds that have been dedicated over the next five years for new hospital initiatives. Even on a population base, northern Ontario has approximately 10 per cent of the population of Ontario; so we are not getting anywhere near our per capita share when we get three per cent of the funds to cover 10 per cent of the people. The $25 million will not pay for one major hospital in northern Ontario.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has been informed on a number of occasions, and I hope the Treasurer will recognize the problems in Saint Ste. Marie, about the aging Plummer Memorial Public Hospital. Efforts have been put together to rationalize the operations of the Plummer and the General Hospital, which are the two major hospitals in our community.

The hospitals are virtually next door to each other. They have developed a good detailed plan for the rebuilding of the Plummer hospital a little closer to the General Hospital and then the construction of a central services wing, which will join the two hospitals and provide common services in the most efficient manner possible for both facilities.

I hope the government will look at moving that initiative forward and getting it on stream rather than, as it obviously is right now, being completely out of initiatives to be started during the next five years.

I am sure there are other communities in the north with similar health concerns which they would like addressed as well.

4:30 p.m.

Finally, I will move on to the area of the budget entitled "Fiscal Management," which is where we get to the issue of taxes, tax increases and changes in tax rules. Basically, our conclusion concerning the tax initiatives is that there is nothing to be negative about because there are virtually no initiatives in here. I have to admit there are no major tax increases in any of the major sources of revenue to the province. However, there is nothing to be positive about in terms of fiscal management either. The Treasurer has been given an opportunity to restructure some of the taxes and to introduce tax fairness, and he has done virtually nothing in that vein.

We see no provision for a minimum tax on the wealthy. We have no initiatives for easing the property tax burden, which is a very regressive tax to the disadvantage of average home owners in my community and in others. We see very little in terms of the initiative that has been made regarding the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, which I had understood this government was committed to gradually phasing out.

In northern Ontario, and in my community in particular, the issue of gasoline prices has been an ongoing serious concern. The penalties that northern consumers pay in higher gasoline prices are a severe economic hardship. They mean extra dollars out of everyone's pocket in the north. They are a disadvantage for businesses in the north, a disadvantage that is reflected in the greater distances that are required both for residents in the north and for those moving goods and services in and out of the north. We have no initiatives either to reduce gasoline taxes or to take action that would better equalize the price of gasoline across the province.

Those of us who come from northern Ontario feel there is a basic unfairness in what has been going on now for a number of years in terms of the much higher gasoline prices we are paying than residents of southern Ontario pay. I have asked the Treasurer before to look at this issue. Obviously, he is in sympathy with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, who indicated earlier today that the government has no intention of taking any action against the oil companies, which are gyrating consumers around in terms of the prices they are charging, which bear no relation to their costs or to the fact that the oil prices on the world scene have been sharply reduced.

The differential being charged in northern Ontario is not related to the costs actually incurred to get gasoline to the north. In Sault Ste. Marie's case, we have very low cost vessel transport in tankers right on the waterfront. There is no justification for prices that are seven, eight, 10 or 12 cents a litre or even higher in Sault Ste. Marie than in Toronto.

The last area before the conclusion of the budget was a brief mention of the new budget process and of the fact that the Treasurer has asked that a new legislative committee on finance and economic affairs be appointed. I am pleased to be one of the members of the New Democratic Party on that committee.

The terms of reference as the Treasurer has laid them out include what he states is "a growing public concern about corporate concentration and ownership. In many cases this concentration is being fed by mergers and takeovers." The Treasurer states, "I question the merit of these mergers as well as the dangers the resulting concentrations pose for our communities."

That is true for the northern communities I have been talking about, those that are so dependent on one major industry. Communities such as Sault Ste. Marie are at risk by the decisions being imposed by Canadian Pacific, which controls Algoma Steel and has a majority on that corporation's board of directors.

I look forward to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs having the opportunity to investigate the whole area of corporate concentration in ownership. If we can come up with some proposals that will ensure the corporate world operates in a more democratic fashion and is more responsive to the needs and concerns of the employees and the communities that are so dependent upon them, we will have done something of value.

In conclusion, I want to point out a few areas where I and other New Democrats feel major initiatives are needed in the budget and in terms of where this government is going in the next year to support the economy of northern Ontario.

First, we would like planning mechanisms to be introduced that would encourage the diversification of the northern economy. We need structures and programs that will provide long-term planning at the community, regional and provincial levels to enable northerners to control their future and to offset the effects of the boom-and-bust cycles of the resource industries in the north.

Second, we would like to see mandatory resource use planning agreements. These agreements should be flexible but should include guarantees to train local residents, to provide opportunities for small businesses in the north and to invest profits in community development.

The third initiative is one we have been advocating for a long time. I continue to press the Treasurer to look at the need for a northern Ontario tomorrow fund. We need a heritage fund, modelled on the examples in Alberta and Saskatchewan, so the wealth that is created through resource development is reinvested in northern Ontario rather than its being taken to southern Ontario, New York, Atlanta or wherever, with no benefit to the areas where those resources are coming from. We would like to see a permanent, northern Ontario fund that would build stable communities and long-term employment for northerners.

Finally, we would like to see the government become involved in resource development that would provide permanent jobs for northerners, in terms of both direct resource development and secondary industry that would produce more finished products; products related to the resource sector but ones that would be more job-intensive and would displace much of what is currently imported into the Canadian economy.

The provincial government must play a major role in diversifying in the north by centralizing its offices, by expanding services and by becoming more directly involved in the whole area of resource development and diversification.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to seeing what this government will do during the next year, particularly about those problems that we in the north are facing right now on a day-to-day basis. The severe economic hardship that is facing my community is one of serious concern to me and to everyone in Sault Ste. Marie.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to comment since the member for Sault Ste. Marie is talking about one of the real emergencies in the province. He is aware that my wife and I lived there. I used to teach in the old high school; it is closed now, but I still have many friends in the --

Miss Stephenson: That is why.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Leave me alone.

Mr. Foulds: It was a cause-and-effect relationship.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Members are using up my 140 seconds.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Sault Ste. Marie. The various ministries of the government will be responding over the next few weeks, we hope with something concrete.

We acknowledge that Mr. Kelleher and the federal government have indicated a special fund of about $6 million will be utilized over five years. It is quite a lot of money, but as the honourable member has already pointed out, depending on how long we spread it out, it can look fairly large and not be that significant on a year-to-year basis.

I was particularly delighted and pleased that the member mentioned the employee share ownership plan. Not many honourable members talking about the budget have referred to that great initiative, fleshed out with all the details the honourable member is referring to.

I want to give members the assurance that it is not our idea that the concept of the program be top-hatted; i.e., it is not designed to reward the upper echelons of management. It is designed so working people can enjoy the benefits of share ownership -- i.e., profits, we hope -- during these buoyant times in the growth of the economy of the province.

I would be the last to say seriously that all the details are worked out, but we intend to have a program in place for the first of the next calendar year. We have solicited views from interested people, management and labour particularly. We are not designing this to undermine labour in any way, although I am sure my comments will not make them feel that much better about it, but we do believe it will be a viable and effective program.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to respond to the Treasurer's comments. I would like to inform him that since he left the Sault, while the high school is shut down as a high school, it is prospering as a facility for other uses, in particular an elementary school that is now the largest elementary school in the community with a very successful French immersion program. The projections show that in the French immersion program at the Sault collegiate, the student body may be as large as the previous high school within a very few short years; it is up to about grade 6 right now.

I see a number of problems with the employee share ownership plan. One is, where does it give the employees any say in the operation of the corporation? It appears to be another tax benefit or tax loophole that goes with surplus funds to purchase shares. They will be able to get some benefits and reduce their tax payments, and we will see more and more people without any tax burden at all.

In terms of the overall applicability of the program, if a major corporation or a smaller corporation were having difficulty and the employees wanted to take over the firm, from what I see, this plan does not address that critical issue. That is most important. The employees want to get control of the operation, of the decision-making, particularly in cases where the plant is being severely reduced in size or shut down. We would like to see that addressed as well.

Mr. Pollock: I rise to partake in this budget debate. I am concerned about what is not in the budget rather than what is.

I have a major problem in my riding, and that is the excessive cost of workers' compensation assessment rates. One of the industries that are hard hit in my riding is the forest industry. This year all the rates went up by approximately 15 per cent.

The forestry industry got involved in what it calls the new employment experience rating program. That means if a company is employing a person who gets injured and goes on workers' compensation, the employer's rates go up. The forestry industry's rate went up from $11 and change to $13 and change.

A person called me who got involved in the new employment experience rating program. His rate is $33.17 on $100 of assessment payroll. That means that if he has a payroll of $20,000 a year, he is paying more than $6,000 for workers' compensation coverage.

I have a letter from another gentleman -- actually it is a copy of a letter -- addressed to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, which I wish to read:

"I wish to have all my compensation coverage cancelled as of March 27, 1986. I am ceasing to operate my business due to the recent results of the new experience rating system and the unrealistic ratings being charged to my account.

"I can understand having to pay either increased rates or the amount arrived at under the new rating system, but I do not understand the reasoning behind having to pay both penalties. I trust that the Workers' Compensation Board is proud of these kinds of actions, as you have just put one more small business out of business, which means that three families now find themselves on UIC benefits, and with the job situation as bleak as it is in this region, probably on social assistance for who knows how long.

"Congratulations on a job well done."

It is signed by Charlie De Geer.

All is not well in the farm community either. Rates went up by 15 per cent for the dairy farmer. I know that if one is paying out more wages, and wages are going up every year, that amounts to far more than 15 per cent. On my family farm operation, with the increased dollars I had to pay out for help, my workers' compensation assessment actually went up by 35 per cent. I point out too that I pay out more in workers' compensation coverage than I pay for insurance on five tractors, two trucks and two cars. I pay almost double for workers' compensation coverage.

I also question the Workers' Compensation Board's right to come along and assess an employer even though it has never proved that employer is at fault. It automatically puts his rate up. I thought the notion went out 200 years ago that one was guilty until proved innocent. Nevertheless, the board is doing this under the new experience rating program.

Mr. McLean: New government policy.

Mr. Pollock: It could be.

On May 14, there was a meeting at the Bancroft Fish and Game Club. It was a meeting with a group of people involved in the forestry industry to discuss the NEER program. I was not able to be there because of a previous commitment. However, I talked to a gentleman afterwards and he said there was real concern. This gentleman runs a sawmill business. He was paying out $34,000 for workers' compensation coverage, and it now has gone up to $42,000 in a one-year period.

I feel there should be one rate for all employers across the province. The only time there should be an increase in a rate is if an employer is found guilty of negligence towards his employees.

4:50 p.m.

I was in this House when the critic for the Ministry of Labour begged the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to take dollars out of the general revenue fund and help out with the workers' compensation premiums, but it fell on deaf ears.

I could go on to tell about some other experiences. My next-door neighbour had a person working for him. This was a young fellow, a well-built chap. This happened last fall. For some unknown reason, he was up frigging around with the beaters of a self-unloading forage wagon. He had a pair of mitts on, and one spike of the beater caught in his mitt -- this was late in the fall; that is why he had mitts on -- and started to take him through the beaters.

If he had not been a strong, well-built lad, he would have gone through that forage wagon and that would have been the end of it. He was able to throw himself back and break the chain that actually runs the beaters. As a result, he wound up with an arm broken in two places and some internal injuries. He was on workers' compensation for more than three or four months.

This is another thing: Under the new program, one gets 90 per cent of one's wages. When the farmer put down his wages, he put down his wages plus the amount he allowed him for board, which was $70. When the fellow was on workers' compensation benefits, he was actually taking home far more dollars than he had been getting when he was working. One cannot blame the guy; we are all tarred with the same stick. He was taking home more money than he had been when he was working; so one could not blame the guy for being a little hesitant to go back to work.

I wanted to put these statements on the record. I feel the government should have helped out with the increase in costs to the small businessman and the farmer by putting some dollars out of the general revenue fund into workers' compensation to alleviate that burden.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought the budget, if anything, had too much in it about small business. We had quite an array of enriched programs and some new programs. One of the ones I am particularly interested in is designed to attract entrepreneurs, mostly young people, who want to start up small businesses on their own.

What we require from them is $15,000 that they borrow from their Aunt Maude or somewhere and a business plan: "How I can make money making pizzas?" or whatever it happens to be. It has to be reviewed by a bank manager, and we pay the local bank manager to do that. If it is approved, we guarantee an additional $15,000, so that an entrepreneur has $30,000 available to start.

That is not much for any kind of substantial business, but what we get is an opportunity for young people to take a chance at this. He or she is required to hire one additional person. I use both pronouns because our experience is that many more women than men are moving into this area, and it is interesting to note that their failure rate is much lower than that of men.

We do not for a moment think this is going to be the great final answer; far from it. It is more in the sense of an experiment giving young people particularly and others who have worked for a long time for somebody else a chance to branch out on their own and make some money for themselves. They may lose some money, unfortunately, because it is not guaranteed, other than the half of the loan. We also think it is going to improve opportunities for jobs for young people in many communities where those opportunities are pretty scarce.

Mr. Lupusella: I have a comment I would like to make. Briefly, I was following with interest the comments made by the honourable member in relation to employers raising the issue that they pay too much on their assessment. I sympathize with small businessmen in Ontario, but the member should be aware that when a committee of this Legislature was appointed to take a look at the Workers' Compensation Board reforms, we made the point very clearly that the best investment to reduce the rates to employers across Ontario was to increase safety in the work place.

I hope the administration of today will take into consideration this aspect of reducing accidents. In the final analysis, the employers across the province will have their rates reduced.

Mr. Pollock: In response to the Treasurer, I have no axe to grind with his program of $15,000 to allow small businessmen, students and those types of people to get involved in new businesses. That has not too much to do with what I was talking about, which was workers' compensation claims. That $15,000 to help start up a new business is a fairly well accepted program.

To respond to my learned friend the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), I am not against safety in the work place. In fact, I try to promote it. In different cases, I have employed people and I have told them, "This is the safe way to do it." I know perfectly well the minute my back is turned those fellows will go and take a shortcut, and they are the ones who are actually at risk. How does one control it?

This Legislature passed the seatbelt law, which says that once one is over 16, if one is riding in a car, one is responsible for wearing a seatbelt. That is not the way it is in the work place. The employer seems to be always at fault, and I do not think that is right.

Mr. Pierce: It is a pleasure for me to stand up in this House today and give my response to the budget tabled by the Treasurer.

While we are on the topic of compensation, I support my honourable colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) in regard to the high compensation charges now being faced by a number of small employers who find themselves no longer able to find work in major industry. As a result, they go out and promote the job environment by starting up small businesses, making room and making work for other employees, and then find themselves faced with very high operating costs.

5 p.m.

I know the pulp and paper industry and the logging industry in my riding have got out of the business of doing their own cutting, slashing and hauling of their wood products. Maybe the large companies saw the writing on the wall with respect to compensation and that necessitated their move away from being the harvesters of their wood products.

As a result, a number of small contractors sprang up in the Rainy River district and thought they could go out, work a little harder and provide the labour necessary to bring the product into the mill and at the same time be small businessmen and make some money. They also have found their rates going from $13.65 per $100 to $33.80 per $100. Over and above that, they find the WCB assessing them the costs related to any claims they may have had in the last year.

One small contractor in my riding employed eight workers. He had eight tree farmers and was commanding some fairly large contracts with a major paper company. He has now put himself out of business because he can no longer afford it, based on the high compensation rates and the high employee costs of being a big businessman. He is now back to running things with one tree farmer and one helper.

As long as we continue to address the problems of the small businessman by making sure we as government get our fair share or better, we will always be faced with high unemployment and welfare. We certainly seem to be promoting that in the type of legislation we prepare in this day and age.

Having the opportunity to address the Liberal government's budget allows me to represent my constituents, the people of Rainy River and of the north. It is on their behalf that I express my disappointment with the government's lack of concern for the people of northern Ontario. The Treasurer says his commitment-to-action budget "responds to the individuals, regions and industries that need immediate help." He says it offers "a series of concrete incentives to innovation and entrepreneurship."

If the Treasurer read his budget more closely, he would realize there is no commitment to act in northern Ontario. The individuals of this region have continually been shortchanged by this government in the past year. Unfortunately, the 1986 budget has ignored vital issues in the north, a part of Ontario rich in minerals, forestry and natural beauty. This region could enhance our economic prosperity if only the government would recognize its importance to the province and treat its people with the fairness they deserve.

The budget talks about additional money for tourism. The government is going to put new signs along the highway and build new rest facilities. It talks about these measures in promoting the tourist industry and showing people how it could treat them to "Ontario-incredible," as we now call it.

I have a note that came across my desk today from a resident in my riding, who is in probably one of the heaviest tourist related areas in northwestern Ontario, the south end of Lake of the Woods. He said: "Re Highway 621: Upset with the condition on the road. My wife had a blowout and rolled her car last week. No guardrails or anything along the road for protection. Does someone have to be killed before anything could be done on this road?" The government is responding by saying, "Yes, we are going to put up road signs, new washroom facilities and restaurants."

As I said before and I will say it again, in response to the throne speech and in response to the budget, until such time as this government is prepared to address the conditions of the roads in northern Ontario, we will not promote a tourist industry. Tourists that travelled this same road last year to some of the prime, purest area in northwestern Ontario came back with broken axles, flat tires and damaged boats and motors because they could not continue to drive over the roads. We sit here in this Legislature and come up with this kind of a budget and say we are going to set up better signs to enhance tourism. I hate to say it, but that is not going to enhance the tourist industry in northwestern Ontario.

Unfortunately, the 1986 budget has ignored the vital issues in the north. What upset me most is that the government has not equalized the price of milk or gasoline in the north. It is fine to talk about the price of gas in the north, and we talk about it often, and we recognize the differences in the cost and that they are related somehow to the marketplace. There seems to be an attitude that if one lives in the north, then one should be prepared to stay in the north and one should be prepared to pay to be in the north. One will do that by paying more for the commodities that everyone else in this great province takes for granted, and the prices are then dictated by the marketplace. The people in the north must pay unnecessarily high costs for the necessities, while people in the south enjoy reasonable costs because they are dictated by the marketplace.

Yet somehow or other, in past years and past governments, we have been able to equalize the price of liquor from one border to the other. In many cases, people in the north have lower incomes and cannot afford $2.60 for a two-litre bottle of milk for their children. In southern Ontario I can buy three litres of milk for $2.49. Where is the justification? We produce all our own milk in northern Ontario; we do not bring it in from southern Ontario nor do we transport it from Manitoba. The districts of Rainy River and Thunder Bay are exporters of milk, not importers; yet we still pay excessively high prices for milk.

In the last election, the Liberals campaigned on the strength of saying: "You in northern Ontario deserve to be treated better. You deserve to be paying the same prices for the necessities of life as the rest of the people of Ontario, and if we form a government, we will equalize the price of milk in northern and northwestern Ontario." Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid that has not happened.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn't you do it before?

Mr. Pierce: It is fine to say, "Why didn't you do it before?" Today is today. Yesterday was yesterday. Let us look for something better tomorrow.

Not meeting the needs of the people in this respect is a crime. Families need assistance. Where is the $100-tax deduction that was promised in the 1985 Liberal campaign? They may have forgotten their promise, but I can assure them the people of the north have not.

In the budget, we have done some things. The budget says there have been no significant increases in taxes. It is perhaps unknown to a lot of members here that in northern Ontario the products move in and move out by trucks and trailers. We have now removed the tax exemption on trucks and trailers, which can only reflect back to the consumer. Nobody else can pick up the difference in the price of the truck now that people have to pay the tax on it.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is the same in the other provinces.

Mr. Pierce: I am saying that is the difference in northern Ontario. Those prices are real prices.

A lot of the entrepreneurs in northwestern Ontario are in the trucking business. They are small truckers, very competitive, working very close to the line; yet we have a government here today that says: "Here is a chance to pick up some more tax money. We have not increased taxes. We are just removing the exemptions." One small opportunity that people in the north and throughout Ontario had in getting around some of the high cost of fuel was by being able to convert their vehicles to alternative fuels such as propane and, to a lesser degree, natural gas. The Liberals say, "We did not add any tax; we just removed the exemptions." I guess they do not call that a tax increase. I always thought it was to be considered as an additional cost, but this budget says, "We just do not have the exemptions any more; so it is not considered a cost."

Mr. Dean: That is not a cost?

Mr. Pierce: No. We may have to write out a bigger cheque, but it is not considered a cost.

When one buys an average vehicle to get back and forth to one's work place or to move around in northwestern Ontario from one community to the other, the cost of that vehicle is up to $18,000 and, where one was previously exempt from tax if it were run on an alternative fuel, one will now pay more than $560 in tax. I do not know, but it seems to me that is an increase. I may be reading it wrongly.

In the speech from the throne, the government promised to provide immediate additional funding for northern Ontario tourism development programs. Although a total of $12.8 million in new funds is being allocated to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, there is no mention of how much will be spent in the north. The north will likely not see any of this funding.

5:10 p.m.

It is not with completely blind eyes that the people of the north recognize there is more to tourism than northern Ontario. A lot of tax dollars in tourism come into eastern Ontario too, and we recognize the need to spend and promote tourism throughout the province. However, our voice has to be heard in the Legislature, through the Speaker and through the ministers responsible, to make sure that when there is an allocation of funds set aside for more development in tourism, northern Ontario gets its fair share.

In the budget, $5 million was allocated to education, along with the proposal in the throne speech of a technical school, which would be situated in Sault Ste. Marie or Sudbury. First, $5 million in the area of education, an area of great importance, will not even cover the north's existing expenditures. Second, although I am sure the Liberals think themselves clever to introduce a technical school proposal for the north, they neglected to announce that startup costs would range between $5 million and $7 million, a sum that would leave the rest of the region without funds. The government also did not mention that some of the students will be required to travel distances of more than 800 miles if they want to attend the school. Furthermore, where will the money come from to keep the school running?

The campaign promise to provide complete medical care for northern citizens and to reduce the frequency of patient travel to southern Ontario is not in this budget. There is nothing to provide better access to special care and treatment facilities. The people of northern Ontario are still required to travel great distances under extreme conditions to gain access to what we in this part of the province consider natural. Here we get in a subway or a taxi and go to the facilities that provide the services. The people of northern Ontario are not so blind as to think every community can have these types of facilities, but they believe geographical distances dictate that the facilities could be better placed throughout the province.

The promise fully to reimburse citizens who travel to southern Ontario to obtain care they cannot receive in the north is not addressed completely. There is an instance in one of the communities in my riding today of a young lady who requires additional treatment for her heart. Her husband is an employee of a small company and makes very little money. There are four children in the family.

The requirements of travel for health care dictate that they buy the ticket to bring the lady down to eastern Ontario to go through more testing, and when they return home, after the doctor has signed the forms, they apply to be reimbursed. These people do not have command of $1,000 in their savings account. They do not carry plastic credit cards because they do not have the credit. For that reason, the service clubs are out on the streets trying to come up with the necessary $1,000 to have that girl brought down to eastern Ontario for treatment. This is not accessibility to health care. If anybody believes it is, he wants to come up and take a look around.

The $25 million allocated to support northern hospital programs is a mere drop in the bucket. Facility improvements will never be met at this rate. A small community in the west end of my riding has applied for and received approval for 14 extended care beds. The Ministry of Health has responded by saying: "Your hospital is not suitable to attach 14 extended care beds. You do not require extended care beds; you require a new hospital." The population of the community is under 1,000. The proposal by the consultants is $7.5 million in today's dollars. This community's hospital is less than 30 years old.

The people believe the hospital serves the needs of the community, but the Ministry of Health has said: "That is not the case. If you want extended care, you go with the full package. We are going first class and that includes the new hospital. You come up with your share and we will come up with our share." Those kinds of conditions are pretty tough to meet in communities of fewer than 1,000 people.

I cringe when I think of the way the government has ignored the region's vital farming, mining and forestry industries. In the riding of Rainy River -- and it is strange the way the weather treats us -- for the last two years farmers have been unable to get on their land because it has been so wet. This year it is so dry that our forests are all on fire. Yet the response by the government of today is, "We are expanding our marketability to the Pacific Rim, and this is going to assist the farmers of Ontario."

The farmers in my region, the west end of the district of Rainy River, because of government controls and regulations, are required to drive 160 miles out of their way to get their beef cattle to market. Recently, they received a letter that said, "The elevator that was accepting your grain last year is no longer accepted as a designation elevator and the new designation elevator will be in Sarnia, Ontario." It is only about 1,300 miles. I suggest it may be difficult for some farmers to bring their grain in early on Saturday mornings.

A promise of special marketing programs and assistance programs for farmers does not apply. When we were in power, the Ministry of Northern Affairs worked closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to implement a northern agricultural strategy. Through the northern Ontario rural development agreement, NORDA, 900 farmers were given financial assistance to upgrade their farms. Government assistance went a long way in establishing a vital sheep industry in the north. Those are not the goats that went to Sudbury either. Those were the sheep that went to northern Ontario.

In addition, the $10-million agrinorth program contributed significantly to agricultural development. The program of financial assistance for high interest costs and refinancing of farms is also being used by the farmers of northwestern Ontario.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what has the Liberal government done for the northern farmers? I do not really expect you to answer that here today because it would take a long time, but I am sure you may have the answers.

In the area of mining, which was probably one of the more stable industries in northwestern Ontario until the last 15 to 20 years, the Liberals have done nothing to assist the mining industry. Almost every day and any day that one picks up a paper, there are more layoffs and closures in the mining industry than in any other industry in Ontario. If this Liberal government thinks it has done something great for the mining industry in this province, then I believe we are in serious trouble.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It all happened in 10 months, did it?

Mr. Pierce: It certainly developed in 10 months. The Treasurer says the mining industry has long been the mainstay of many northern communities; yet the proposals simplifying the Mining Act presented last fall are still on the government's shelves.

Finally, with the exception of the pesticides lab, which may be of some direct benefit, the forest industry is largely ignored by the government. The government says it is increasing its forestry budget by 13 per cent. This is not nearly enough for a thriving industry. If the dry spells continue in the north, protection of the forest industry will be out of our control and anything we would have done to stop the spreading of the spruce and pine budworms will have been for nothing, and the forest will no longer be with us.

5:20 p.m.

We should have seen more assistance for our troubled mining industry, more support for the proper harvesting and conserving of our forests and definitely more concern for the northern farmers. With the $2.3 billion increase in revenues this past year, the north, which makes up 10 per cent of the population in Ontario, is entitled to at least $230 million in value. If the north was given its fair share of this amount, the areas which desperately need funding could be accommodated. Nothing has been presented in this budget which benefits the people of the north economically or socially.

When the Liberals say they are committed to ensure that all Ontarians are guaranteed their fundamental rights and yet they come out with a budget that practically ignores a major region of the province, one wonders about the commitment they have to the people they serve. The people of this province will soon realize the shallowness of the government's promises. The Progressive Conservatives, unlike the Liberals, are committed to listening to the people of northern Ontario and will make sure their voices are heard in this Legislature.

I appreciate being able to speak on the budget. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would like to make some comments in regard to the remarks the honourable member has made. I appreciate what he has said. I want to point out to him, as far as my Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is concerned, never in the history of throne speeches in this province has there been as much attention and profile given to the tourism, recreation and hospitality industry as there was in this recent throne speech and this budget.

In the throne speech, references were made to additional marketing for northern Ontario. This will be taking place very soon. The member will know we are starting a roundtable. He has been invited to some of these meetings in northern Ontario to look for a tourism strategy for the whole province, with special emphasis on northern Ontario.

We have already held meetings in Dryden, Saint Ste. Marie, Timmins, North Bay and Sudbury, and in July we will be in Thunder Bay. We are not telling the people of northern Ontario or Ontario what is good for them. We are going out to ask them, "What is your greatest need?" There will be an excellent report and action will be taken on behalf of northern Ontario.

I want to point out also that last December, when there was a problem at Searchmont near Sault Ste. Marie, we did not wait for that to be closed; we helped keep it open for the winter. As a result, there has been a great deal of interest shown there. This ministry is going to do everything possible for northern Ontario, and I mean that.

Mr. Pierce: I am encouraged by the minister's comments on tourism. I do not want to attack him in his role as the minister for tourism and development in northwestern Ontario or Ontario as a whole, but I only hope he is able to have enough influence on the other ministries within his government to ensure that, "Yes, minister, the tourism industry is prepared to assist you and offer you comments."

I am sure the topics of roads, accessibility to the industry and fewer laws to allow the industries to expand, flex their muscles and promote themselves were some of the comments that were widespread at the roundtable discussions. Certainly, those were some of the comments in Dryden.

The minister cannot do it by himself. Anything that happens in northwestern or northern Ontario requires the participation of a number of ministers, not one alone. We recognize also that the tourism industry is one of the most important industries to the development of northern and northwestern Ontario, but we also recognize that industrial jobs cannot be totally replaced by tourism alone. It takes more than just tourism.

I thank the minister for his comments.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in the throne speech debate. At the outset I would like to extend my congratulations on the way the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) presides over the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your continuing to serve in this capacity. I congratulate you on your dignified approach to debate in this House.

I must say, though, that I am disappointed in both the presentation of the throne speech and in the budget from this government, particularly, as my colleagues from northern Ontario have indicated, in regard to addressing the need for development in northern Ontario.

In the throne speech was a section that purported to deal with strengthening the primary sector. In that section of the throne speech, the only sectors mentioned were tourism and agriculture. As the minister has said in the House, there was an emphasis on tourism in northern Ontario, and we welcome that. There was an emphasis on the need for economic development for farmers in the north, and we welcome that. Yet it is beyond me how any government can have a section of a throne speech that purports to deal with the primary sector but does not even mention mining or forestry. There was not one mention of mining or forestry. The two most important resource industries in northern Ontario and, for that matter, in this whole province were not even mentioned.

After I saw that, I hoped that in the budget we would see something dealing with those two crucial sectors and dealing with the needs of the north. I must say I was again disappointed.

We have a reiteration of the $100-million fund announced earlier by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), half of which is the old northern Ontario regional development program in the first year. As a matter of fact, the budget specifically mentions that $17 million will be drawn from the $100-million fund. That fund will be going for five years.

Beyond that, all that is mentioned for northern Ontario is $5 million for education, most of which, I suspect, is going to be taken up in funding the proposed school of science and technology, which is needed and which is a good proposal. That is going to take up the total for education in northern Ontario.

The rest is $10 million for health and transportation. I suspect that deals specifically with the medically necessary travel program which was initiated by this government with our encouragement and which we support. After the throne speech, the Treasurer got up and said something to the effect that transportation was being dealt with, and he referred to the $10 million for health and transportation. That $10 million has nothing to do with roads or with other types of transportation. It is specifically for the people in northern Ontario who need specialized medical care but cannot get it there and so are being transferred to larger centres in the north or to southern Ontario.

The only other announced funding program specifically related to the northern economy is the $25 million for adjustment, not just for northern Ontario but for the north and for eastern Ontario.

5:30 p.m.

We are undergoing tremendous restructuring, the buzzword. Yesterday in the standing committee on resources development, the Deputy Minister of Northern Development and Mines called it job shedding. There is certainly job shedding in northern Ontario, and we have announced $25 million in the budget to deal with this adjustment in eastern and northern Ontario. I said to the Treasurer last week that was peanuts, and I do believe it to be peanuts.

If we look at the immediate situation facing Algoma district with the announcement made recently by Algoma Steel Corp. of a layoff of about 1,500 jobs in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa, we realize we are talking about a yearly pay package for that 1,500-work force of $45 million. We are taking $45 million out of the economy of Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa alone each year, and the government is answering with $25 million for economic adjustment for northern and eastern Ontario.

It is peanuts and it will not do anything. I said earlier in this House that the Treasurer has designed this budget in the same way the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) designs the road map of Ontario. Southern Ontario is on a much larger scale and northern Ontario is relegated to the back and ignored. We have serious problems in the north to which I believe this government is obligated to respond.

I will be fair. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has travelled in the north extensively. He has attempted to learn the problems and to design programs, but he is alone in the cabinet, which must be difficult. He set up an advisory committee on resource-dependent communities of which I was a member. You were also a member, Mr. Speaker, as was the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce). That committee has made its report, has finalized it and sent it to the minister. I hope the ministry and this government are going to respond, but the budget does not encourage me.

Obviously, most northern Ontario communities are dependent on forestry and mining. This dependence has left northern communities vulnerable to threats currently beyond their control, which mean serious dislocations. Changes in world commodity prices, depletion of the resources, productivity improvements, new technologies and the cyclical nature of these industries make it very difficult for any northern community, for families in the north or individual workers in the north, to plan ahead and know where they are going to be five years hence.

A major layoff or closure can force the majority of a town into unemployment, destroy local businesses, rob the municipality of its major source of revenue and depress housing values. It costs all Ontario taxpayers, not just northern taxpayers, through increased unemployment and welfare payments, lost tax revenue and lost investment in infrastructure that is no longer needed.

We have situations in northern Ontario where we put in water and sewer services for communities based on projections that have been given to us by the resource employer, the resource industry. The economy was going to expand in that community and the population was going to expand, so we overbuilt the infrastructure. When there is a major change and suddenly the industry announces it is either going to lay off and down-size or close out completely, the taxpayers of this province are left with having spent the funds that were not really needed and the north is left with high unemployment and a declining population.

The age of the population in northern Ontario is getting progressively higher and the size of the population is going down. At a time when the unemployment rate in this province is going down across Ontario, the unemployment rate in northeastern and northwestern Ontario is going up. On regional adjustments, this is the time of year when unemployment is viewed traditionally as going down.

When the economy of the Golden Horseshoe and Toronto is booming, we normally anticipate the economy of northern Ontario will also increase and expand. However, right now, as the economy is changing and we move to more emphasis on the service sector and the information industry, the primary resource and heavy industry upon which the north is dependent is declining. While we have a boom in southern Ontario, we have a decline in the north.

I am not sure we have been able to explain well enough or convince this government that we are in a serious decline. There are two Ontarios, one that is in decline in the north and one that is expanding and growing in the south. I am certain the budget indicates the government does not yet realize that.

I would be the first to recognize there is no quick fix. I agree with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) that these problems did not suddenly develop in 10 months. They have certainly been exacerbated and they have certainly got worse. We have had one layoff announcement after another all spring, but I agree they did not develop all at once. They have been ongoing. The previous government did not respond adequately and did not foresee the need to take action to deal with the problems of the northern economy.

Mr. Runciman: The member had to say that, did he not?

Mr. Wildman: In response to the member for Leeds, it is interesting that the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) is saying the same thing in northern Ontario. I find that amusing and somewhat ironic when the member for Kenora was the Minister of Northern Affairs for 10 years. Now he is saying the same kinds of things I am saying right now about the economy in northern Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: It is a requirement for the member to blame it on the previous government.

Mr. Wildman: I am not blaming it on anyone. One of the problems we have in this House is that as politicians obviously we make political statements, but we have political rhetoric and we never get to the point of actually dealing with the serious problems facing northern Ontario.

I am not particularly interested in blaming anyone, whether it be the previous government, a political party, the corporations, the unions, the small business sector or the municipalities, but we have to work together to do something about it now. If we do not, we are going to face the situation where we are going to have a Cape Breton on our hands in northern Ontario. I do not think anybody down here understands that yet.

There are two ways of dealing with the problems of the north. One approach is to look at each individual problem or crisis as an individual aberration, something that has to be dealt with on an ad hoc, reactive basis. That has been the approach in the past, and it not worked for Tories, Liberals or New Democrats. The other approach is to stress the potential of the north, not to be gloom and doomers, but to see we actually have a chance to develop real employment opportunities for northerners. That approach sees the north as an asset to the provincial economy, not as a dead weight or an anchor pulling us down.

If we accept this approach, we have to move beyond trying to cushion the blows major layoffs impose upon us. We can create a prospering region with a stable employment base, good service facilities and a clean environment. But this Legislature and this government have to move quickly, in concert with the other two levels of government, if we are going to achieve that. We must create programs and structures that lead to long-term planning at the community, regional and provincial levels.

I believe northerners and their communities must have more control over the decisions that affect them. Moreover, the wealth created from resource development in the north must be reinvested in the north to build strong diversified communities.

Yesterday, before the resources development committee, the deputy minister indicated we are creating more and more wealth in the north, and in that sense the economy is improving. At the same time, they recognize that the employment levels are going down in the north. That says to me we are taking more and more wealth out of northern Ontario and reinvesting less and less in our part of the province.

In the short term, that may benefit the metropolitan centres, Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, and the people who live in southern Ontario, but I do not believe it benefits even them in the long term. I do not think creating more congestion, concentration and centralization is good for the economy of the province as a whole. It certainly is not good enough for the north.

5:40 p.m.

The provincial government must take the leadership role in diversifying the north by decentralizing government offices, expanding services, research and development and direct involvement in resource development in northern Ontario. In the short term, when closures or layoffs happen, the investment of the community and the workers in those industries must be considered, and the government must make a commitment to preserving those communities and developing real job opportunities for the people who live in them.

If there is going to be community and regional planning, as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has been saying for these many weeks and months, that planning must be co-ordinated at the provincial level. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is in the best position to take a strong leadership role in co-ordinating provincial policies for the north. That ministry must work closely with the regional economic development councils to develop a well co-ordinated, long-term strategy for northern development. It should serve as a one-stop information and assistance base for northern communities.

If there is longer-term planning, it will have little effect unless northern communities are given a larger voice in how the resources of their areas are to be developed. Current decisions about our publicly owned resources are developed and left to the corporations, which have few long-term commitments to the community. That has been shown over the last few weeks by the comments of Canadian Pacific. Mr. Stinson, the president of that corporation, has indicated his company is too dependent on world commodities and is actually talking about disinvesting in northern Ontario and in this whole country, taking the wealth that has been generated by the resource industries it owns here and investing elsewhere. That is an indication of the lack of commitment on the part of the corporate sector to northern development and to the economy of this province as a whole.

If we are going to give corporations access to our resources, the provincial government must be actively involved and must involve the communities that are affected. If they are not, it is almost impossible for the communities to plan ahead. It means little if wealth is to be produced and not channelled back into northern Ontario, if it is to come to southern Ontario.

The provincial government should be getting a better return on its resources and the northern communities should have a role in determining the nature of this return. If a corporation is to use the resources of northern Ontario, that corporation must be required to enter into planning agreements with the provincial government to get access to those resources. In developing those agreements, the local communities must have input and be involved in the negotiations.

These agreements should set out a corporation's five-year plan, which would be updated annually. The contents of these agreements must be flexible, but they could include subjects such as employment and training for local residents, opportunities for local business, provision of community facilities and reinvestment requirements. Obviously, there are going to be changes in the circumstances as the economy of the province and of the world changes. Therefore, the five-year plans must be flexible, but they should be updated on an annual basis, in consultation with the provincial government and the local community.

Each year the north produces $3 billion worth of minerals and the raw materials for the $7-billion forest industry. So far, very little of this has been reinvested in northern communities. As the president of Canadian Pacific has indicated, much of it has been invested outside this country, not even in southern Ontario. Northern development programs and funds have been established on a short-term basis by previous governments, but in our view there is a need for a permanent pool of capital to be reinvested in the north according to guidelines and priorities developed by the regional planning councils and the provincial government.

For many years, this party has advocated the development of a northern Ontario fund, which would be used to spur development in the north. This fund would be built up through using the revenues that accrue to the provincial government from the development of our resources. The fund could be dispersed on the basis of loans, grants and direct joint ventures to help with regional, community and provincial development.

I believe, though, there is a greater role for the provincial government. As a major employer and a major provider and owner of our natural resources, the provincial government has a major role to play in diversifying and strengthening northern Ontario. One way it can do this is through diversification and decentralization of its own services.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has talked about the possibility of moving 1,000 civil service jobs into the north. I commend that, but I do not think it is enough. In other countries, we have seen a concerted effort at decentralization. That means not only moving jobs or expanding the civil service in the north, but also locating key policy personnel in the north so the policies and programs formulated by the staff of the government will have a solid understanding of northern Ontario.

The local offices could provide employment and stability to the communities and they would understand better the needs of northern Ontario if they were located in the north. I encourage the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to move quickly and to embark on a major initiative to decentralize government offices.

In our view, however, it should not be left at that. We should also move quickly to decentralize health care and educational institutions into the north. One of the major problems we have faced in northern Ontario for many years is the difficulty of attracting professionals to northern Ontario and of keeping them there once they come. We have had all sorts of subsidy programs, and they do not work. If young doctors, for instance, take advantage of the underserviced areas program, in many cases they will come to a community and stay until their time is finished and then move on, sometimes to a larger centre in the north but more often to southern Ontario.

I do not believe money is the problem. The problem with attracting professionals to the north is that they feel isolated. They feel a long distance from the new developments in their fields and they do not have the cross-fertilization they might experience in a larger centre in southern Ontario where they would have contact with other people in their own and in related fields.

We are never going to have that until we have a major teaching facility located in northern Ontario. It is about time we moved, stopped talking about the need for a teaching hospital in the north and actually established one. It is not enough for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to state that there are too many doctors in this province. There may be too many doctors, but there is also a maldistribution of doctors, to use the term once used by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell).

We do not have enough specialists in the north. We do not even have enough general practitioners. On top of that, we do not have enough therapists in related health fields, whether they be physiotherapists, audiologists or speech pathology specialists. I believe we need a major communications disorders centre in northern Ontario. If people from southern Ontario want to get into those kinds of institutions, they can come to the north. They will find they like it and they will find it is a great place to live. They will get married, settle down and practise in the north.

5:50 p.m.

I welcomed the announcement of a technology and science high school in northern Ontario, although I am sure it is going to take up the whole $5 million announced for education in the north; but it is not enough to train secondary school students in science and technology in northern Ontario. If we have such a school related to the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto, we should have one in the north. If that is it, if we are just training them so that after they graduate they leave and come to post-secondary educational institutions in southern Ontario, we will still be losing our youth. They will graduate, they will stay down and work there and will not contribute to the development of northern Ontario.

For that reason, it is imperative that this government move quickly to expand the funding for the existing universities in northern Ontario and to strengthen those universities to enable them to expand and widen their programs.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is it a bad thing for northern kids to come to southern Ontario?

Mr. Wildman: No, it is not. It is useful for people to travel and to broaden their horizons, but if there are no opportunities for education in the north, fewer northerners, on a percentage basis, are going to take advantage of postsecondary education.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Then we are going to get some from here go up there, if that is the idea.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. I would like people from southern Ontario to expand their horizons and travel to the north to study there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. This is not a question period. Please keep going.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is provoking me.

Mr. Martel: Ask the Treasurer what they are going to work at in the north, which is the basic, underlying problem.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, they are interrupting.

In that regard, I will point out a couple of things. It does not make any sense to any northerner, whether Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, for us to have the major forestry school in this province located right beside Queen's Park. There are a few trees out there in Queen's Park, I will admit, but they are hardwood. They are not coniferous trees and they are not spruce. It does not make any sense for it to be located here in Toronto. For that matter, it does not make a lot of sense for the major school of mines to be located at Queen's University in Kingston.

This government must take the bull by the horns and admit that we have the resources in the north, where forestry and mining are located, so the educational institutions related to training people for those industries and developing new technologies related to those industries must be located in the north.

In that regard, I believe this government must also develop a northern technological research and development institution in northern Ontario which would collect and develop technology suited to northern needs and make it accessible to northern communities, particularly small communities, so that we can develop secondary manufacturing and secondary industries related to our resources.

The proposals I have been making are not new. This party has made these proposals on many occasions. I admit they would not be easily implemented. If the government is going to suggest that there be a major decentralization of government offices in the north, a lot of civil servants will be upset; but once they get up there they will realize it is a good idea, just as it was in the federal sector when it was decided to locate the forestry research centre in Sault Ste. Marie. There were a lot of complaints from the well-educated scientists who did not want to move there. Now one cannot get them to move away.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Like the insect pathology lab?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, the insect pathology lab.

I will admit, too, that if we are going to move educational institutions, if we are going to develop a teaching hospital in the north, if we are going to have the training of medical therapists, if we are going to have the forestry school, the mining school and new technology institutes located in the north, the government is probably going to have a number of well-educated, well-trained people with a great deal of expertise who may not want to move there. But, by God, they are going to have to move there. This government has to take the bull by the horns and say: "We are committed to the north. We are prepared to treat northern Ontario differently. We are prepared to agree that the formula that applies in southern Ontario should not be applied in the north."

I make no apologies for making these suggestions. In northern Ontario, we have 800,000 people. We have about the same population as Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and far more people than Prince Edward Island, and every one of those provinces has major universities located within its boundaries, with major professional schools. If they can have it, we can have it. All that is needed is the political will to make it happen. I demand that this government moves in this area. Otherwise, we will have a different Ontario in the north, a declining Ontario, which will compare very poorly with what we have in the south. We have tremendous potential in the north. I plead with this government to recognize that potential and to develop it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to comment on the remarks made by the honourable member, which are extremely useful indeed. I was particularly struck by his thought, which is not a new one, but which was put with force and reasonableness, about the decentralization of government offices. Many of the objections he then used in response to his own demand are ones we and I am sure our predecessors heard as well.

I am familiar with the city of Sault Ste. Marie, whose population is about 80,000, if it is that much. If something permanent, God forbid, should happen to the steel industry or to Algoma's ability to respond competitively, or if Algoma should feel after careful economic research that the quality of the ore in the Helen mine -- is it still the Helen mine? -- is such that it cannot continue in spite of all the assistance it might be offered federally and provincially, then it is going to take more than a couple of relocated government offices and all the goodwill in the world to maintain Sault Ste. Marie as a viable city. I welcome the comments of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), other northerners and anybody else who has good ideas so that the members of the government can respond in a way that is valid.

The member knows about the allocations of public funds in the budget, but I just want to run through them quickly: $10 million for health and transportation for the north; $5 million for new education programs for the north, which may all be channelled into one northern school of science -- in my view, a good idea; and an additional $17 million in the northern development fund. We are returning to a 65 per cent processing allowance and we have announced plans for a new Mining Act, which we think will be very useful. We have quite a spectrum of additional programs that time does not permit me to list. These will assist but by no means answer the problem the member has put.

Mr. Harris: I too enjoyed the comments of the member for Algoma. With reference to the $17-million figure that has been bandied about by many speakers in the debate and just alluded to by the Treasurer as new money put into the budget, I suggest that we heard a year ago in the previous budget it was one of these multi-year things -- $100 million over five years.

A little earlier today in response to one of the speakers, the Treasurer pooh-poohed the federal assistance -- was it $5.6 million? -- for Sault Ste. Marie. He said: "But, of course, that is over six years. That is one of the multi-year things." We are looking at a budget that calls for a $1-billion technology fund. It is really $100 million a year over 10 years. We are hearing from the master at trying to stretch these things over a great number of years.

That bothers me, especially when we get into an example of it. We had a budget from this Treasurer last year in which he stated there would be $100 million over five years. Most of us took that to mean $20 million a year, but what happened in the first year? There was $3 million spent in the first year; that is all. What happened in the second year? There was $17 million spent; that reflects a $3-million cut. We lost $17 million from what he stated in the first year and we are losing another $3 million in the second year; yet this Treasurer has the gall to get up and say what a wonderful new program this is.

6 p.m.

Mr. Martel: My colleague the member for Algoma said that once teachers got to the north, they would not leave. I tell my friend there was one science teacher whom they ran out of Sault Ste. Marie. That is the rumour.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I was there two years. If I had stayed another year, I would be there yet.

Mr. Martel: I was not sure if they had run the Treasurer out or if he had left on his own.

One thing that has always bothered me during my many years here is that there is never a forum for discussing the north in a serious way. The markets are here in the south. We from the north believe we have to plan, and we plan one year at a time in most budgets and so on. There has never been a committee with the capacity to put together how we might develop the north economically. We get a lot of civil servants, most of whom are from the south. They understand the south, know the south, and the north is the hinterland.

What bothers me living in the north and seeing the extraction of resources that are sent somewhere else and either processed or sent out semi-processed is the great belief that somehow free enterprise is going to develop the north. That is ludicrous when we look at the distance from markets, where those markets are, where the cash is and so on. What we need is a group that has a planning capacity. In West Germany, for example, if they want to place someone near the Russian border and that is risky, government and the private sector get together to do it.

Northern Ontario is not going to develop on its own because some free enterpriser goes there. They could have done that 100 years ago in Sudbury and they did not do it. One-industry towns, one after the other, have gone down the tube. We need somebody who looks at the situation and says, "We can use these resources in the north and develop them into finished commodities there."

The Deputy Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to put questions or comments? The member for Algoma in his reply.

Mr. Wildman: I thank the members for their comments and questions. In regard to the comments made by the Treasurer, I do not think he was present at the beginning of my remarks when I did deal with what he raised. I recognized that there was no quick fix for the problems of northern Ontario, and I presented some ideas I thought this government should act upon. I still believe they are worthwhile proposals.

With regard to his comments about the money in the budget, I also dealt with that at the beginning of my remarks. I pointed out that other than the $17 million, which is part of an already-announced program, there is $5 million for education in one high school, which I support; $10 million for health and transportation, which is basically the medically necessary travel program; and part of $25 million for adjustments in eastern and northern Ontario. That pales when we compare it with the one-year payroll that is being taken out of Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa with the announcement of 1,500 layoffs. That amounts to $45 million annually.

I recognize we have major problems and it is not going to be easy, but I hope the minister and his government will look very carefully at the report of the Committee on Resource-Dependent Communities and at others that are making proposals and will agree that northern Ontario must be treated differently and must be made a special project of government.

I recognize that in the past the Treasurer has indicated on many occasions that he believes the legislators of this province should travel to the north to learn about the north. I hope his government will actually institute this policy about which he has talked for so long.

With regard to the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), it is quite true that the funding is not adequate. I agree with that completely, but I point out that when his government was in power, these problems were developing and it did not make any concerted effort to develop the north.

Mr. Dean: During the past two weeks, some of my colleagues have dealt with various anomalies and deficiencies in different parts of the budget, and I do not expect to repeat too many of the comments they have made. Accordingly, I will confine my remarks mainly to the social services aspect of the budget, not only the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but also the social policy field, health and education, with particular emphasis on the programs for seniors.

One of the things that is conspicuously lacking in the budget is any reference to the situation in Ontario with respect to the institutionalization of the elderly. We know and many members will realize that the PC party has embodied in its discussion paper, Care For The Elderly, many of the policies we have promoted over the years and on which we have been working. One of those is to rely less on complete institutionalization as a solution for the problem of care for the elderly in our society and to turn more and more to home and community care.

However, while that is being worked out, and we will have to see whether the present government will work it out, there is still the need for care in institutions. One cannot stop everything right off the bat. Recognizing that situation, a little more than a year ago our government set forth as a policy pattern for us that we would establish 4,000 new nursing home beds in Ontario as soon as that was possible in 1985. Unfortunately, that did not happen because of the result of the rather peculiar actions of the other two parties in the Legislature following the election.

I gather the present government decided to review the whole matter of nursing homes and the allocation of beds and froze any other allocations. It has been a long winter, and that is still frozen. I do not know what the big delay is. Perhaps there is a good rationale for the government's continued failure to provide the kind of extra nursing home accommodation which is needed.

As I said earlier, this is only one of the ways to serve the elderly. All the members here could point to the number of elderly in their own communities who urgently need additional accommodation of this sort. In my area, it is well documented by our district health council that 150 additional nursing home beds are urgently needed. We know they are needed because, unlike some of the communities in Ontario, in Hamilton-Wentworth we have a very efficient, well-qualified assessment and placement centre which is able to determine where a given person will be best placed.

Apparently, the Treasurer and this government do not share the experience of many health care providers in Ontario, as described by one of them, a doctor, nurse or visiting homemaker. They are on the front line of the health care system when it comes to dealing with all kinds of needs, but particularly for my purposes at this moment with the care of the elderly. They must deal with them day after day, and deal with the angry and hostile families, as this person put it, who demand that the government provide the appropriate care for their aged parents and provide it now.

Perhaps in the dim, distant future we will be able to minimize this. I hope the present government will carry out the plans we had in mind. At the moment, there is a shortage that needs to be addressed.

The second aspect of care for the elderly relates to an announcement that was made in January 1986 by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and supported by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne). This had to do with integrated home and community care. It was announced with considerable flourish. It was reannounced in the speech from the throne in April. It has been mentioned again in the budget, and we are still waiting to see if anything is going to happen. We have certainly had a plethora of announcements.

6:10 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio for seniors' affairs spent a good bit of time last summer in that vacation ground called Ontario, both north and south, going around consulting about seniors' needs and possible policies, which I commend him for. However, a report was made and we were assured that it was going to be released soon. I think that was the word. "Soon" seems to be a favourite word of the present government.

It is rumoured, however, that it has run into heavy weather in the cabinet. We have not seen it yet. Who knows just what has happened to the result of this consultation which was to be a cornerstone of government policy in providing care for seniors. My own opinion is that the government and the minister are embarrassed by this failure to follow through on their promise.

Many members will recall that reached a height where the minister had to set up a planted question last week to allow him to give a feeble excuse for this continuing, apparently unending delay in coming out with a more complete plan of integrated home and community care. This was given lipservice in the budget, but we have to see something before we actually believe anything is going to happen there.

A few moments ago I referred to our Progressive Conservative discussion paper, Care for the Elderly. I also referred to the need for good placement and co-ordination services. In this document, we have strongly emphasized the need for this. It needs to be set up in every community where we need it -- I guess that would be every one -- to ensure the provision of appropriate services for the elderly and to eliminate any existing confusion and red tape surrounding the programs.

For example, we say there is a need. I hope the government is listening. There seems to be nobody here to do with the health or social policy fields from the cabinet or any parliamentary assistants, but we hope the news gets back to them. We should expand and refine home-based services such as homemakers, home care, home nursing, Meals on Wheels, shopping and bank transportation. Much of this is done on a volunteer basis in many of our communities now, but we should be sure that it is done in every community in Ontario.

We should boost provincial support of those volunteer agencies. We should raise grants for the elderly persons' centres. We should increase the availability of respite care, enabling families to have elderly relatives cared for while relatives have a much-needed vacation. This provision for alternative community care will avoid what we now have as a reverse domino effect: where nursing home beds are not adequate, as I mentioned, and as a result, chronic care beds get filled with people who should be in nursing homes. If it backs up enough, acute care beds are filled with people who should be in chronic care facilities; so the logjam needs to be broken.

As far as respite care is concerned, this is especially important for people who are caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease. Many of us have heard -- I heard very recently -- tragic accounts of the burden and exhaustion that family members and other care givers experience when they do not have the opportunity for a respite from that very important but nevertheless demanding and tiring kind of care.

To turn to a positive side, there is reference made in the budget regarding capital funds for hospital development. We welcome that for all kinds of hospitals and health care centres. One that is very important for a portion of my riding and the adjoining areas is what is called St. Joseph's Ambulatory Care Centre. This is not a hospital but an innovative idea which has been brought to a very complete stage of planning. Now they are at the sketch plans stage.

What it needs from the government when that proposal is submitted is the endorsement of the approval that our government gave it in September 1984, and continuing to provide the green light for that to be developed as a substitute for a full-service hospital. It is an interesting program, which I will not go into in detail. I described it in my talk on the throne speech.

However, in the budget, in spite of some of the desirable things that were done and things we still need, there have been, regrettably, increases in taxes or decreases in exemptions. Taxes were increased by $700 million in the last budget and the deficit by $500 million, giving well over $1 billion of extra taxation or extra reserve -- room for movement anyway -- by the government. In this budget, the deficit is only $1,544,000,000 million, which is somewhat less, about $85 million less. We think some of that extra cash money, the tax money that came through as a bonus or windfall, should have been applied to the reduction of the deficit.

There is an increase in expenditure growth, which is inevitable when one plans to be everything to everybody. We think the expenditure growth of 7.4 per cent is so far above the actual increase in inflation that it is going to be hard to cool down if we ever want to come to grips with the deficit we have.

At the same time, we note that the estimates project an increase in the size of the public service, which is contrary to what happened during the previous administration. After a 10-year decline, there appears to be an increase of 1,450 civil servants above last year's level. I draw this to the attention of the Treasurer so he can be very cautious in continuing a further expansion of that.

I mention those matters of tax increases and government expenditure growth because one of the features I had in my constituency newsletter, besides asking certain questions, was a place for any other questions. Mainly, the comments I got there were things such as this, "I get the feeling that I am employed by my school board and the government because of the tax levels."

Another resident said, "There is too much government." Another said, "I feel the cost of government is much too high and the elected officials or government intrudes too much in areas where they should not be." I do not consider my riding to be a very right wing, Genghis Khan type of place, but this is the kind of feeling expressed by well-balanced people concerned about the community.

To continue, another resident said: "Taxes are always rising. It is the government's answer to everything." Another person said: "We want lower taxes. The middle class is taxed too high." Finally, someone said: "I am very disappointed in the government's methods of revenue. They should be eliminating government spending." I could go on with more of those, but I will not continue too much longer.

The very last item I wish to draw to the attention of the Treasurer and the government is one I have mentioned before. I admit it is parochial, but once in a while we have to look at our own backyard.

Mr. Wildman: Especially when one has to get re-elected.

Mr. Dean: That is good. Someone says it is a good thing to pay attention to one's riding.

The former government promised to extend GO Transit to the Burlington-Hamilton area.

Mr. Cureatz: And to Oshawa, I might add.

Mr. Dean: And to Oshawa. I know it has been well spoken of by the people from that area. For the west end, an extension of better service was promised by the previous government. Since the present administration has taken over, there seems to have been no progress in construction and no commitment whatsoever in this budget.

6:20 p.m.

I am a little nervous about that, because we really need this, not only in the Oshawa area, as the member for Durham East reminded me, but also in the Hamilton-Burlington area. Is the government abandoning this commitment to additional adequate service to Burlington and Hamilton-Wentworth? If not, why is something not said about it? The latest information I have is that there has been no initiative by the province and there has been foot-dragging even when municipalities have pressed the government for action. Shame on the Liberals.

The facts of life on the Queen Elizabeth Way, Mr. Speaker, which you may not travel too often, are that even in off-peak times, traffic is so heavy that it is no treat driving there. That has no way to go but up as development occurs, especially in the area nearer Toronto. The best way to eliminate the buildup of that traffic is to increase the GO Transit service to the areas of Hamilton-Wentworth which need it so much. I would use it myself if it was frequent and I could be sure it was going to get me here on time. That is a system on which the government needs to put more time and commitment, because there is no doubt that the GO Transit service has been one of the real successes the government has developed over the years, and it should be encouraged to expand.

I hope I have not seemed too negative. I know the Treasurer has done his best, according to his lights, in allocating the resources of the province in this budget. We think the suggestions we have been making, and I feel particularly the ones I have made in the last few minutes, are worthy of consideration and perhaps of amending some of his budget proposals.

Mr. Breaugh: The impassioned speech by the member is worthy of a short intervention. He must have a little trouble with coming to grips with what we know as the reality of May 2; that is, he is no longer in the government.

A couple of points in his speech are worth noting. One is that in the transition from the government to the opposition side of the House, members of his party seem to have acquired a whole new social conscience, which I welcome. For a long time on matters of child care and care for the elderly, the previous government was pummelled regularly in this Legislature for not doing anything. Now that they are on this side, they seem at least to be taking advantage of the opportunity to do a little pummelling of their own. If their track record was a little better, their credibility would stand up a bit better.

When the member made reference to GO Transit, that tweaked a little response, because in our area the GO Transit operation is a matter of considerable discussion as well. He seems to have forgotten that it was his government that cancelled the light rail proposal to the eastern part of the city. I can understand why he makes a plea for GO Transit to the west, because I believe it is needed as well; but he seems to have forgotten somehow that while he was in the government, it cancelled the GO advanced light rail transit scheme. I thought we would give him an opportunity to refresh his memory a touch as we close off the day.

Mr. Cureatz: I listened to the honourable member's excellent speech. I would like to centre in on those issues involving the GO Transit extension, both east and west of Toronto. The member aptly put forward his concerns about what is taking place on the Queen Elizabeth Way. I want to bring that to the attention of all members in the House, and I am very confident that those members who are not in attendance will be reading Hansard later tonight to inform themselves about some of the stimulating debate that has taken place here this afternoon.

I want to add to the member's thoughtfulness in recognition of the problems of GO Transit. I remind the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that indeed there were some difficulties with stopping the light rail system and converting to the heavy rail system east of Pickering to Oshawa. Our previous Minister of Transportation and Communications, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), indicated that with this conversion, we were still very confident the heavy rail system would be in place. The member for Oshawa will recognize that now we have some difficulty with those nasty Liberals over there, because the road that has been completed has gone as far as Brock Street in Whitby, but after that, nothing is happening. People drive up and down Highway 401 continually and they see the road bed, but no track is being laid -- not one rail.

I feel a little sorry for the member for Oshawa, who is obviously today an apologist for the government -- and I have never seen him give that kind of performance before -- trying to explain away why the GO rail system has not only not come to Whitby, but not even made an appearance. One cannot even see the smoke of the diesel engines coming towards Oshawa. If the member for Oshawa and I could at least come to an agreement that we should be a little more critical of the Liberal administration, we might get that GO train to Oshawa.

Mr. Harris: I want to join in complimenting the honourable member for his remarks made today on the budget. I share his concern with the overspending we have seen in this Trudeau-MacEachen type of budget, whereby the more money one gets in, the more one spends. When the good times roll, one spends the bejabers out of them. Then when one gets into a few problems, one has a massive deficit problem that is even greater. I enjoyed the member's remarks, which he put very succinctly. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks. When the budget debate resumes, I will be making some lengthy comments in the same direction.

I also want to speak briefly to the member for Oshawa, who was quick to make some comments on my honourable colleague's speech. I got to my feet to respond to the member for Oshawa a couple of days ago when he was not in the Legislature. It was determined that was not an appropriate time because he was not here; now is even more appropriate because he is here and he cannot respond because he has already spoken.

During his remarks, the member complimented the government on making some move on Ontario health insurance plan premiums. He slammed the government and said it did not do anything it said it was going to do -- it was going to wipe out OHIP premiums, or start to phase them out -- but he complimented the government on exempting some 35,000 more people from OHIP premiums. The big charade comes on page 51 where it says in 1985-86 OHIP premiums totalling $1.622 billion were raised and the budget proposes to raise $1.653 billion, or $31 million more.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Harris: Obviously, more people will be paying OHIP premiums.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Dean: I want to reply to the little needling my friend the member for Oshawa gave me concerning GO Transit. I know he and I agree it is a good system. Whether it is done by GO-ALRT or by conventional rail, it is still very desirable and fills a need we cannot fully meet without some kind of nonhighway system.

I do not want to go into details, because I think the member for Oshawa knows them as well as I do. Certainly, the member for Durham East commented very graciously on the content of the speech. As we understand it, the difference between the two systems is that GO Transit is likely to come more quickly by conventional rail than it is by GO-ALRT. The point I was trying to make is that the present government does not seem to be doing anything with either system. I do not know what it is doing.

Briefly, the other thing I want to say to the member for Oshawa is that I do not take a backseat to anybody in having a social concern for the people of my community or my province. In the position I held for a time, I was well aware of all the different social programs the government of the day was doing and enlarging, which this government would do well to emulate.

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

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to provisional standing order 30, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General why he was putting the welfare of farm animals in Ontario in jeopardy by his stubborn refusal to meet with the officials of the Ontario Humane Society to work out a purchase-of-service agreement in order to meet the minister's responsibility for enforcing the sections of the Criminal Code that concern cruelty to animals.

I have had reports that the Ontario Provincial Police have received complaints of serious abuse of animals but have not been able to deal with them adequately because of a lack of resources to hire veterinarians and a lack of facilities for housing and feeding abused animals. The OPP has called on the humane society to assist, but the society has been unable to respond adequately because it was forced to withdraw the services of its regional agents and its two inspectors on April 1 as a result of a lack of funds.

In the past year, the society has received only $85,000 for its Criminal Code work. This is actually a cutback of $40,000 from the $125,000 granted in 1984-85 by the previous government. Both amounts are grossly below the real needs. The society has received nothing for this fiscal year, but has formally requested $410,118 and has documented this amount by showing how it would be spent. The Price Waterhouse report, which chose the society as the best agency for carrying out the responsibility of enforcing the Criminal Code sections, estimated that up to $500,000 would be needed by the society to implement the report's recommendations for additional staff and training courses for inspectors and agents.

The Solicitor General replied yesterday that he had met with the society and had invited the society "to come back to negotiate to seek to redress to what it considers to be its funding problem." I was not satisfied with the minister's reply, because I have a letter from the president of the Ontario Humane Society, dated May 22, saying categorically: "We have had no negotiations, we have not heard directly from the minister himself in any form; and we are receiving calls from the police, who say they cannot do the work and are asking for our help. We have received calls from the Durham Regional Police, the OPP in Woodstock, the York Regional Police and the Sudbury Regional Police in recent days, asking for assistance in dealing with animals in need of assistance."

This information is directly opposed to what the minister told me yesterday. It also documents that the OPP is not able to do the job of enforcing the Criminal Code sections on cruelty to animals. The minister has made excuses for his inaction in carrying out this serious responsibility of his ministry by saying the Ontario Humane Society has not made a formal application for funding. I point out to the minister that the president of the Ontario Humane Society, Mr. T. Hughes, sent him a letter and a telegram on August 1, 1985, soon after he took office, telling him that the society would have to lay off all senior inspectors and a number of agents who do the work of the society in rural areas if the society did not receive its 1985-86 grant.

He followed this up with a letter on August 13, 1985, in a special edition of the society's magazine, Animal Action, which quoted all these communications and was headlined with the word "Crisis" in two-inch letters. This was circulated to all members of the Legislature. On April 30, 1986, the minister claimed in the House that it had not been sent to his office. It seems to me that he is not seeing the relevant documents that are being produced by the society.

It seems the minister's excuse of no application is, therefore, a bureaucratic quibble to hide his refusal to sit down with the society and work out a mutually satisfactory purchase-of-service agreement.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It gives me great pleasure tonight to be able to have this time in the House, five minutes, to comment on this issue when no one is about. I suppose we could ring the bells for a quorum, but I am not going to ask for a quorum call for that type of thing.

Mr. Wildman: It is never done at this time.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It is never done at this time. I thank the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). Normally, in question period one has one to two minutes to give an answer and I consider that quite often not an opportune time and rather inadequate.

Mr. Wildman: Make a statement tomorrow in the House.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: There is no need for a statement; we can make a statement right now in five minutes.

I am extremely pleased to respond, because I grew up in a rural area, I know what it is to farm and I know a fair amount about the operation of farming, cattle and the rest of it. I also know some of the concerns farmers of this province have had with regard to the whole aspect of law enforcement with regard to animals by the society. That is not my point, because I do offer strong support for the society, the work it has done in the past years, the many accomplishments by its president, Mr. Hughes, who has been with it literally a lifetime -- I think it is 35 years he has worked there, and he has brought it along the way a great deal from where it originally started -- and for the volunteers and many of those who work on behalf of the animals that are in the society.

The problem that has developed is one we must look at in context. We are dealing with a private organization. It is most important when we deal with private organizations which seek funding from us that we be sure the funds we advance are used for the specific purposes we contract to have done. Perhaps one of the problems is that this has not been a fee-for-service arrangement. I suggest, as we are looking at it in the ministry, perhaps the way we are going to have to go is on a fee-for-service basis.

I checked with the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and I am very interested in the areas -- I will get them from Hansard -- where the honourable member mentioned there are problems. I was told by my officials there have been no reports from our officers on duty of any problems in enforcing any calls they have had to date. The other information is different, and I will be happy to check out those areas when I get back from the House.

With regard to a cutback, it is improper to call it a cutback; $85,000 is the amount they were given previously. An additional $40,000 was given a year or two ago for specific purposes, and those specific purposes were to hire a chief inspector and to work towards training. The inspector was hired but after a very brief period was laid off. We must be fiscally responsible.

Ms. Bryden: There was no money.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We gave $40,000 to hire a chief inspector. Do not tell me that will not hire a chief inspector. We have a lot of people working for much less than that, even right here in this building. What we want to do, and what we have asked and encouraged the society, namely, Mr. Hughes, to do is to come and sit down and work to develop a five-year plan of reaching the goals set out in the Price Waterhouse report, and advance the appropriate money. The analogy is much like building a house. One does not provide a builder with the full funds of the cost of that house before he starts to build. They build, and as they put in the foundation, the roof and something else, one advances the money to do it. That is the best analogy to what we are looking at here.

We invited Mr. Hughes and members of the society to come in to meet with my staff. They met on February 4. It was a very long meeting between the Deputy Solicitor General and the president, who is also the executive director of the society. We received yesterday, by hand delivery at four o'clock, a letter which said they would reject out of hand the idea of the $40,000 for this year, because they feel they will not take any money rather than simply a beginning. We have asked them to come and work with our officials to make that planned progress towards those goals.

We are looking very seriously to determine a much more succinct type of fee-for-service arrangement with this private society than simply handing out sums of money. On Friday we received the request for $410,000 to up to $447,000 and one single page which simply lists dollars down the side as the full and only justification for $447,000. That was totally inadequate from my officials' point of view of being fiscally responsible.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.