Hansard Transcript 1988-May-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Dietsch: Today I rise to speak on my private member’s bill, An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. I know this bill will not meet the needs of everyone, whether they be here in this Legislature or in our constituencies back at home. I also know that, as strong as I am in my convictions, there are those who have opposing views. This is not unlike many issues we will deal with in this Legislature. However, this issue is different. This issue deals with a principle, and that principle is life.

Let me bring you into the Legislature as it unfolded for me and those who arrived as the class of 1987. Morgentaler’s case was before the courts waiting for a decision. The previous Minister of Health, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), in March 1987 had outlined a number of women’s health care initiatives. These were to provide a co-ordinated comprehensive approach to meeting women’s health care needs across this province. Service provided by the centres would include a wide range of education, counselling and referral services such as family planning, infertility counselling, premenstrual syndrome and menopause education and support, counselling on alternatives to abortion and pre- and post-abortion services.

The provision of abortion services in accordance with existing law was one component of a comprehensive women’s care program. Within that framework, abortions were only to be performed in a hospital setting and only on the approval of a therapeutic abortion committee.

In December 1987 the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), the new Minister of Health, announced the first women’s health care centre at Women’s College Hospital. The hospital received $1.5 million in ministry funding which was to provide a wide range of education, counselling and referral services. The centre has a staff of 45, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, health educators, ultrasound technicians and support staff. Women will be able to attend the centre through self-referral or by the referral of a physician, health professional or community agency.

As a health education resources centre, it will offer a wide range of written and audio-visual information on reproductive health. Services in the new women’s health centre will include individual and group counselling in family planning and contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The centre will provide other physical examinations for pregnancy assessment and diagnosis and referrals to other services. Infertility counselling will be provided. A premenstrual syndrome education and support program will assist women. A menopause support program will provide counselling and treatment. Services for pregnant women will include counselling on alternatives to abortion and support for single mothers.

On January 28 the system changed entirely. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that section 251 of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion is unconstitutional, which brought an end to the charges against Drs. Morgentaler, Scott and Smoling. The Supreme Court decision takes Canadians, in my view, a step backwards in their quest for a just society. The right of the women to autonomy is upheld and the right of the unborn is quashed.

On February 8, the Minister of Health’s statement in the House said: “My ministry’s legal opinion indicated that the Ontario health insurance plan is obliged to cover these procedures effective the day of the Supreme Court decision.” These payments, of course, are to be at the OHIP rate and extra billing regulations will apply.

It also stated that the ministry is moving to “ensure that only qualified medical practitioners perform abortion services in approved facilities inside and outside hospitals.” Medical standards were established. Quality of care was assured. “Appropriate funding mechanisms are in place,” and “counselling, including counselling on alternatives, is provided before the procedure and as a follow-up.... These regulations will prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of commercial and/or unregulated abortion clinics, a scenario made possible by the Supreme Court decision.”

On February 12, the Ontario Public Hospitals Act was amended. All Ontario hospitals were notified that approval by hospital therapeutic committees was no longer required to perform abortions.

We know that the federal government has a responsibility to develop the Criminal Code legislation, but the delivery of health care is under provincial control. I feel it is important to set a stage because I, along with many of my colleagues, have had ongoing discussions with the Minister of Health since we were elected and I feel she listened and has implemented some positive programs.

Do not lose sight of the principle. There may very well be areas that are not workable within my bill, and I am willing to accept that criticism; however, I feel there are many positive attributes involved with women’s health care centres. I also feel there are many positive points addressed in this bill.

I bring this issue before the Legislature knowing full well it is a sensitive issue. Some would consider that I am suggesting interference with a decision made according to a woman’s choice, and I guess I am; however, I feel it is with just cause, because I feel there is an element in this equation that is not being justly treated.

1010

Everywhere in the western world we seek protection and aid for the weak and the most vulnerable members of society. Children’s aid societies protect mistreated and neglected children. We finance homes for battered women and the elderly. We support institutions for the mentally and physically handicapped; innumerable volunteer organizations look after the disadvantaged of one kind or another; and many countries, including our own, have abolished the death penalty for serious crimes. Yet many of the same people have adopted the killing of the unborn as a legal and normal practice. I speak of abortion.

Am I confused? Is there not some kind of contradiction? If we believe protection of the most vulnerable and the weakest in our society from threat to be representative of the highest and noble within mankind, a victory of an enlightened human reason, can we do otherwise but regard legalized abortion as the least noble to mankind? If this self-contradictory attitude is quite within the perception of those considered pro-choice, who argue that it is for each individual to determine whether abortion is right or wrong, if bringing a conclusion to the life of the unborn is a matter of personal choice, consider: why not abusing or molesting the born life?

If every woman has the right to control her own body why are we, as a government, requiring the use of seatbelts or the wearing of hard hats on construction sites? Why should we spend money on antismoking campaigns? Constituents have asked me what our view would be of an individual who showed up at the hospital Thursday morning requesting any particular part of his or her anatomy to be removed. Would we pay for these items under the Ontario health insurance plan?

By asserting that abortion is a private matter, we deny we have any responsibility for each other by defining life’s value only in relation to society or those affected by a life that denies life’s inherent value. It is impossible to support a pro-choice position without at the same time arguing that certain human lives should be sacrificed for the convenience of others.

Defending the life of the unborn is on many occasions presented as a religious issue, and albeit for some it is. It is also planted deep in natural law and was first developed by Greek philosophers, not Christian philosophers. It is biology, not faith, that tells us that a fertilized ovum is the earliest form of life.

There are those who argue that the unborn are not persons, and therefore do not qualify for the rights of the born. However, no one has shown how physical human life is to be separated from personhood or why or how personhood should or could start at any time other than the beginning of life.

Many would argue that the psychological trauma that would be created by Bill 123 and its administrative procedures would create a serious psychological aftermath. I respectfully submit that it would probably be no more than the psychological dysfunction found after abortion is carried out. A report on post-abortion syndrome has symptoms of repressed grief occurring six months to two years after the trauma occurs. Research has shown a much higher percentage of women negatively affected by post-abortion syndrome.

Individual clinical studies and work done by Dr. J. William Worden, psychologist and professor at Harvard medical school, in his report in grief counselling and grief therapy, are examples; as is the work of Dr. Edward Sheridan, psychiatrist and professor at Georgetown University, and Dr. Philip Nye, psychiatrist and professor at University of Otago in New Zealand.

Those are just a few of the reasons I feel it is important to ensure that women have those kinds of information before making decisions. It is important that we do everything we can, from a provincial perspective, to prick the conscience of the women considering snuffing out the lives of the unborn.

I can also appreciate and understand the difficulties when people refuse to carry out their duties. However, one must appreciate the severity of the request. Surely, any Legislature which values individual freedom and autonomy enough to believe that a mother should be free to terminate her pregnancy would also allow the health professional the freedom to be governed by the dictates of his or her clinical conscience.

Surely no one of us would seek to impose on any health professional a requirement to commit what for that health professional could well amount to infanticide, the taking of an infant’s life. If these procedures are going to be carried out, the individual should be treated on a basis comparable to other jurisdictions.

Many American states have abortion conscience statutes, as do many other countries. It has been held up in the Florida courts, when Margaret Kenny sued the Ambulatory Centre in Miami. An employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless the employer establishes that the suffering of undue hardship was the basis used in the decision.

Four Toronto hospitals have statements in their employment applications preventing nurses from objecting which read: “I agree that my personal opinions, private or religious beliefs in respect to certain hospital procedures will not prevent me from carrying out my assigned duties and responsibilities.”

This bill provides that the foetus which could survive outside the womb -- that is to say, a foetus which might survive the abortion -- shall be resuscitated by all reasonable medical procedures likely to preserve its life, unless those procedures would endanger the mother. A foetus which is extracted from the womb after an age when it could survive outside the womb is not the object of what we ought to call abortion; rather, it is a child being born.

The incidence of a child aborted alive is very low; however, research done in California recently suggests that it would be about 1.3 per cent of the time. I mention, however, that with an average of 28,000 abortions annually in Ontario, that would represent about 340 babies. Even though the incidence might be low, the actual numbers of human beings are not low. All I am saying in the bill is that when it happens, the baby be treated the same as if it were a premature baby and be given the medical attention to stay alive.

I recognize that there are many areas of this bill that would cause some concerns to members in this House. It is the principle I would like members to deal with. It is the principle I ask members to consider. If we, as members, can slow down or cause women to reconsider or prick their conscience, to change their thought, I respectfully submit we have made great inroads in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am standing in my place to indicate to the member that I cannot support this bill because I do not think it is a basis for consensus in the House and I do not think it will be the basis for consensus in terms of what will ultimately be determined, either federally or provincially, to be the law.

I appreciate the concerns and the sentiments that the honourable member has expressed, as I am sure all members do, but I say with great respect to him that in a sense he is asking us to do something which the Supreme Court of Canada has told us that in some respects and in some ways we cannot do. It is simply not possible for us to carry on as legislators as if the Supreme Court did not make the decision it made, and it is not possible for us, as members, to make decisions in this House without showing some understanding for what the situation is today with respect to the law.

1020

I think it is important for the House to recognize that we are going to be faced both federally and provincially with some questions that are going to need to be resolved, but I say to the member that I do not think this is the way to proceed.

I think the member indicated -- I hope I am not misquoting him because I listened carefully to what he said – “I may be accused of interfering with a woman’s choice,” and then he said, “I guess I am.” If he reads the judgements of both Mr. Justice Dickson and Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, they make it very clear that the sections of the charter that set out the protection of liberty and security of the person refer very directly to the question of the woman’s right to exercise a choice, and that governments cannot be arbitrary in the way they limit that choice and cannot be arbitrary in the way they interfere with that choice.

I say to the member that by his own admission, the act he is proposing is an interference with choice. I was not writing down quickly enough to catch precisely what the member said, but I would say he had some very highly charged things to say with respect to the respect for life that those who take a pro-choice position have. I say very respectfully to him that this does not help us in our task of trying to build a consensus.

I remind him that the majority of the people in this province, indeed the majority of the people I represent and I suspect the majority of the people he represents have a respect for life, have a respect and concern for the family and have a respect and concern for autonomy of women. We are all wrestling with these moral issues. It does not advance anyone’s cause if we argue that those who take one position or another have a lesser sense of the importance of these issues.

What we are facing is a reality that I can best describe to the member by my own political experience. I am not exactly an old-timer, but I have run in six elections. I can well recall that in the first election I ran in federally, I was of course questioned by many groups, including those who are very much opposed to abortion and very much opposed to women exercising a right to choose.

I can remember an all-candidates’ meeting when people were asking me some questions on abortion and how I felt. I gave the position of the New Democratic Party, which I believe in very strongly; that is, in a pluralistic society such as ours, we have to recognize the realities of choice and we should not be using the Criminal Code to enforce the moral view of one group of society when it comes to the exercising of a moral decision.

I was then very severely criticized by those who are opposed to this position and perhaps reflect more closely the views of the member for St. Catharines-Brock who has just spoken. I said to them, “Let’s ask the people here.” It was an all-candidates’ meeting. They were not people of any particular political view; in fact, they probably represented a cross-section of political partisanship.

I asked the simple question, “How many people here think we should all be reflecting, in our laws, the value of and respect for life?” Everybody put up their hands. Then I said, “How many people here think that the question of abortion is essentially a private moral decision that has to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor?” The vast majority of people in that room put up their hands.

We are faced with the reality that in exercising this choice women are exercising a choice that they think is theirs and that the majority of society thinks is theirs. At the same time, we have a Supreme Court decision that has indicated quite categorically to legislators what the limits are on our power to let our views or the views of individual members of the Legislature prevail over the views of women who want to exercise the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Let me emphasize that I very firmly believe this is a question we will be wrestling with and debating among ourselves for a considerable period of time. I do not pretend to have all the answers and I do not pretend I have solved some of the very difficult questions that are being raised and discussed, but I want to say, with great respect to the honourable member, that I do not think his bill helps us in our efforts to deal, not only with what we think should happen but also with the realities of the world with respect to what the court has told us.

If I can be quite specific in terms of the bill he is proposing, he is suggesting an interference with the right to choose. It is called an Act for Informed Choice by Patients, but I would say with great respect that what this act is designed to do is to discourage women from exercising a right to choose. I think it is fair to say that, and I hope I am not exaggerating.

I read the words “the nature and likelihood of any risk of physical and emotional harm that may be suffered by the patient as a result of the abortion.” It is loaded with a viewpoint that is the honourable member’s viewpoint, but may not be the viewpoint of the woman who is deciding that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is making that choice on the basis of what she considers to be an informed decision.

Should the woman discuss this question with her doctor? Yes, she should; and of course the doctor will discuss it. Should there be counselling for women who are making this decision? Yes, there should be. Should there be counselling both before the abortion and after? Yes, there should be; but it is not for this Legislature to dictate to anybody what form that counselling should take; nor is it for us to interfere in that relationship between the woman and her doctor and say to the doctor, “This is what you must tell the woman and this is how you must respond to the questions she is asking.”

I say with great respect to the member that I do not think we can do that. I do not think a court would accept this as constitutional, but I am not going to hide behind that. I do not think it is the way in which we should be proceeding because I do not think it reflects adequate sensitivity to the question of a woman’s right to exercise her choice.

The question will be raised, “Are you saying then that you think foetuses that are 28, 30 or 32 weeks should be aborted?” I say with great respect to the member, no, of course not. I must also say with great respect to the member that this is not what is happening today in Ontario; this is not what is happening across the country.

The reality, and again one can listen to accounts that have come from a great many people, is that of course all doctors are aware of the changing nature of medical science and are aware of the changing realities of the world in which we live, and abortions are not being performed in this province or anywhere else after 20 or 21 weeks.

In fact, if one talks to people who have been actively involved in the abortion clinic movement in terms of the rights of Dr. Morgentaler and the other doctors who have been working with them, their whole premise has been, “If you get rid of the interference with a woman’s right to choose, when a woman makes that choice will be made much earlier in the life of the pregnancy, precisely because we will have removed all the artificial barriers.”

I say to the member, with great respect again, that if we have inspectors coming in, people who are going to be policing this and a reporting system where confidentiality is not there, it means more information is being more widely shared.

I am very troubled by the implications of the bill. I appreciate the sentiments behind the member’s moving it, but I do not think he is on the right track.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to express my support for Bill 123, An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. This legislation in my view is overdue. It will ensure that a most serious decision is made in a most serious way and it respects the conscience of our health care workers.

It is ironic that this bill comes from a member of the Liberal Party. After all, less than three months ago, on February 9, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stood in this House to claim that only the federal government could pass laws to protect the interests of the unborn child.

As they sometimes say, “Out of the mouths of babes....” Well, out of the mouths of babes and back-benchers sometimes come the most profound statements. Here we have a Liberal back-bencher, elected just last year, introducing a bill that the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Health said could not be introduced. We in this party are not at all surprised.

1030

As soon as the Supreme Court handed down its January 28 ruling on the Morgentaler case, the Progressive Conservative caucus at Queen’s Park met to develop its response. Our position on the issue has been straightforward. First, we want the federal government to bring in a new law that will protect the rights of the unborn. Second, we want the provincial government to use its constitutional power over the administration of health care to regulate abortion in a manner that gives consideration to the interests of both the mother and the foetus. In fact, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has written to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health in support of this stand.

While the federal government adopted our suggestion and is at this moment preparing legislation to replace section 251 of the Criminal Code, the Liberal Party of Ontario has refused to acknowledge that it, too, has a role to play in this most important issue.

To argue, as this Liberal government is doing, that abortion is entirely a federal matter, is nothing less than a copout, somewhat of an abdication of its responsibility. The Constitution says that while only the federal government can put abortion in the Criminal Code, provincial governments still retain jurisdiction over the administration of health care. Progressive Conservatives believe the Ontario government must not shirk that responsibility.

Provincial legislators cannot make the crucial abortion decision; that, of course, is up to Ottawa. But that is not what Bill 123 tries to do. Section 2 says, “The purpose of this act is to establish administrative procedures for hospitals applicable to the performance of abortions in Ontario.” That objective is clearly and constitutionally within our competence as provincial legislators. It is exactly what the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was calling for and exactly what this Liberal government has refused to do.

This bill is not a substitute for federal legislation. We should not have to choose one or the other; we actually need both.

Section 251 of the Criminal Code needs to be replaced, but that clearly is up to Ottawa. There is a need for a provincial law which deals with administrative matters pertaining to abortion, a law which protects women’s rights to informed consent, a law which would allow doctors and nurses to follow the dictates of their conscience without fear of retribution. The federal Parliament cannot do these things; however, we can.

I should also take this opportunity to remind members that despite a lot of confusion in the public and in this House, the recent Supreme Court decision does not stop governments from making laws on abortion. In 1973, the US Supreme Court said abortion was a right. Some people assume our courts did the same thing.

For example, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) told the House on February 8, “The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that abortion is a private and personal matter and that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies and their own lives.” The Supreme Court recognized nothing of the sort. The judges made it clear that the state has an interest in the protection of the foetus and they said that the rights of the unborn must be considered along with those of the mother. There is nothing, not one word, in the recent Supreme Court decision that prevents a new federal law, and there is certainly nothing in that ruling which affects Bill 123.

The vote this morning will be a vote on the principle of the bill. Members may have concerns about certain clauses, but these matters can be resolved after second reading. Hopefully, this House will vote to send the bill to a standing committee for detailed study.

One thing that many members of the PC caucus will raise in committee is the scope of this bill. As drafted, Bill 123 applies only to hospitals. Free-standing abortion clinics are not covered. Perhaps this oversight should not surprise us. Since it came to power, this Liberal government has handled abortion clinics, particularly the Morgentaler Clinic, in a somewhat embarrassing manner.

It goes right back to 1985. On June 26, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) was sworn in as Premier, and on July 7, 11 days later, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was issued an Ontario health insurance plan billing number. Remember that at that time the Morgentaler Clinic on Harbord Street in Toronto was operating in clear defiance of the Criminal Code. It continued to operate illegally until the January court ruling.

The Conservative government refused to give an OHIP billing number to an illegal operation. The Liberals, acting on the advice of the Attorney General, could not wait to do so. It is important to remember that the government did not give the OHIP number to Dr. Morgentaler for just any use. He got it specifically for use at his abortion clinic.

I quote from proceedings of the standing committee on general government of December 18, 1985, at page G-244. The exchange:

“Mr. Pope: ‘He renders medical services, by his own admission, on Harbord Street.’

“Hon. Mr. Elston: ‘That is right; billing numbers are issued by location.’

“Mr. Pope: ‘And that is the place from which the OHIP billings are coming and to which the money is sent.’

“Hon. Mr. Elston: ‘That is right.’”

Liberal support for the Morgentaler Clinic is clear. It is therefore no surprise that clinics are exempt from the provisions of this bill. Perhaps the Liberal member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) can explain why this exemption exists today in the debate in this House, or should the resolution pass before an all-party committee of this Legislature?

I support Bill 123. I do so at peace with my conscience and with the views of my constituents. The bill provides for informed consent. Who can argue with that? Before performing an abortion, each doctor shall tell the mother the state of development of her foetus, the risk presented by the operation and the types of alternatives available. The act then gives each woman at least 24 hours to contemplate this serious decision.

The bill also protects the rights of health care workers to refuse to participate in abortions. This is fair, this is equitable, and as a matter concerning property and civil rights, it is a step only the province can take.

Bill 123 will not put an end to abortion, clearly. But it will make sure that the rights of the unborn, as well as the rights of the mother, are at the fore of the abortion decision. It will ensure that our administrative procedures are fair and more balanced and that the unborn may now become well represented.

The member for St. Catharines-Brock should be proud of his bill and I, too, in this House today will be proud to support it.

Ms. Poole: The bill that is before us today claims to establish administrative proceedings to ensure that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is based on informed choice. This is a laudable objective, and indeed, informed choice is already part of our government’s current policy on abortion.

However, the bill’s true results would be to interfere with and influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. I believe there are a number of legal and constitutional problems with this bill. These problems are so serious that I feel this bill should not be supported.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently addressed the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions on abortion in the Morgentaler case. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Criminal Code violated a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” as guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter of Rights. The court further found that this violation was not in accordance with “the principles of fundamental justice” as required by section 7, and accordingly struck down those provisions.

The court found that the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code caused unwarranted delays, psychological trauma and a greater likelihood of complications and physical risk. It found that the law itself prevented access to abortion facilities, thus violating a woman’s rights.

I believe these same problems also exist with respect to the bill before us today. It flies in the face of the decision of the court, the highest court in the land. This is not to say that the government cannot legislate on abortion, but if it is to do so it must comply with the principles set out in the charter.

1040

The bill presently before the House would be subject to charter challenges on a number of grounds. First, the bill is designed to influence a woman’s decision by presenting a partial view of her choices. Indeed, it erects barriers to those choices. Have members considered the situation where a woman would decide to have an abortion but, under section 4 of this bill, her doctor would he obliged to act against her instructions? This is not informed choice, this is no choice. The material required in the doctor’s information statement, without which the woman’s consent to the abortion is invalid, is clearly slanted towards persuading the woman not to have the abortion. It does not refer to many other issues which might be relevant.

Second, the bill has a great potential for interfering with a woman’s right to security of the person. The bill would cause delay and thereby substantially increase the potential for psychological and physical harm to the woman. The bill requires medical procedures to be undertaken which may cause harm to the woman’s health. Psychological trauma may well result from the nature of the assessment report, the delays and the involvement of the second physician.

As well, the bill has the potential to severely reduce access to abortions. The requirement that the foetus be sustained on life support systems would mean that smaller hospitals and clinics would likely not be able to meet the duty in this bill, thus limiting abortions to facilities with the technical capacity to sustain a number of foetuses on life support systems.

This bill would do all this on the basis of a standard which is vague and impossible to implement in any way. The basic concept which lies behind the consent provisions and which triggers the delivery of the foetus in the presence of the second physician is the potential for life of the foetus. This is a vague and imprecise concept. There is no accepted medical definition of this term. Any foetus at any stage of development may be said to have a potential for life. The meaning of this term is made even more imprecise by the fact that the potential for life must be assessed with regard to the use of artificial life support systems.

Have members truly considered the ramifications of this bill in the instance of a severely brain-damaged fetus, for example? The physician would be required by law to sustain the foetus on a life support system, regardless of the feelings or the wishes of the mother or of the father.

The violations of a woman’s security of the person are thus made dependent on a concept which cannot be defined with any certainty and which is completely unrelated to her needs. This unclear standard would likely result in different interpretations by different hospitals, different doctors and in different areas of the province, thus resulting in unequal access to abortions and medical treatment across this province; the sort of variations, I would point out, that were found to violate the principles of fundamental justice in the Morgentaler case.

I believe that there are a number of additional points in regard to this bill that should be made. First, our Minister of Health has already asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to establish standards of practice for physicians performing abortions in the province. These standards will address some of the concerns raised in this bill.

Second, doctors must already obtain informed consent as part of common law. The new Ontario standards of practice will also include provision for support counselling by all doctors performing abortions, not just those performing them in hospitals.

Third, as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, abortion is considered to be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. As I said earlier, the counselling provision of this bill may, in fact, be seen as a barrier to access. Counselling should be sensitive to the needs of the patient, and women should not be overly pressured in one way or the other. The bill interferes in a fundamental way with the integrity of a doctor-patient relationship.

Fourth, I would make reference to the provisions of this bill concerning the right of a physician or nurse to refuse to perform or participate in an abortion. None of the major nursing organizations -- the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses’ Association or the College of Nurses of Ontario -- support a right-to-refuse clause. Hospitals currently make every effort to accommodate such strong feelings on the part of nurses; however, to enact legislation would present a dangerous precedent in giving health care workers a legislated right to refuse care for patients. For example, nurses could refuse to handle blood products or provide care to acquired immune deficiency syndrome patients because of moral or religious beliefs.

We recognize that abortion is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that we must deal with in our society today. The role of government is to ensure that abortions are provided in a compassionate environment with the highest possible medical standards and standards of care. Our current policy is based on these principles and is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on Morgentaler and with the principles developed by the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The proposed bill violates the rights articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada and violates the principles of compassion and sensitivity that characterize our present approach to this issue. It is flawed both legally and constitutionally. It interferes with the jurisdiction of the college of physicians and surgeons, which sets medical standards and medical procedures in this province; and it interferes with the jurisdiction of the federal government, which has the right to legislate provisions concerning abortion under the Criminal Code as long as those provisions are constitutional.

I have outlined today some of the reasons for which I cannot support this bill. I realize this is a very sensitive issue on which members have very strong feelings. I respect the integrity and the sensitivity of the members who have brought forward and supported this bill, but I would like to say that I cannot support it and I would urge all members of the House to follow this example. In my opinion, the women of this province deserve far better.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in support of this very important bill, An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. Indeed, I believe this bill is the most significant bill that this House has had to deal with in the life of this Parliament.

As I do so, I have mixed emotions: sadness, because by virtue of necessity, this bill has to accept abortion as a reality in our society; sadness that so many, including political representatives at both the federal and provincial levels, appear to accept abortion as a woman’s right; sadness that the bill before us presumes abortion will remain with us when the new federal legislation is enacted.

I hope and pray that this is not so; that the federal members of Parliament will have the wisdom and courage to draft legislation that will uphold the sacredness of the precious gift of life; that they will recognize that human life begins in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; that they will bring forward laws that respect and protect human life at all stages of development; and that the new law avoids any compromise based on the length or stage of pregnancy. For the human foetus in the womb one week or three weeks is as much a human being, has as much potential to grow and contribute to society and is as valuable in the eyes of God and ours as a child of 24 weeks.

I would further point out that there is nothing in the recent Supreme Court decision that establishes abortion as a right, and our object and that of any caring society must be to find ways to give both mother and child the right to life.

At the provincial level, we will be obliged to work within whatever federal abortion law is enacted, and within that framework I believe it is our moral obligation to prevent abortion in as many cases as possible. This is a responsibility we have to both the mother and the child. While we may understand that a situation may in many instances look hopeless, killing an unborn child is never the answer.

The right to know all the facts and all the consequences of a decision to abort is a very important aspect of this bill. Every patient is entitled to receive maximum information prior to any surgical procedure. Regrettably, in the case of abortion, in far too many instances little or no information is given, while quite often the potential for complications is ignored or minimized.

Furthermore, while the depression of early pregnancy due to hormonal imbalance will often contribute to a decision in favour of abortion, calm advice, true compassion and proper information can often steer a married woman or an unwed teenager past abortion. It is especially important that the alternatives to abortion, including adoption, be explored. In addition, social agencies as well as community groups, and especially parents, can provide viable alternatives to abortion.

1050

I would remind members and this government that we have a responsibility to foster and fund programs and community services frequently needed by pregnant women and single mothers. Information through literature and counselling is not enough. We must work to provide government help and support in health care, housing and other areas of social assistance in order to alleviate the pressures on pregnant women who seek abortions.

Had the information provisions of this bill been in place in years past, I believe that many abortions would have been avoided, many babies would have lived and many women would not themselves have been abortion victims.

I welcome the conscience clause provisions of this bill, which stipulate that no physician or nurse shall be dismissed or disciplined for a refusal to participate in an abortion due to objections based on moral or ethical grounds. In 1969, pro-life advocates sought such a conscience clause. I believe this to be absolutely necessary for medical personnel and for other conscientious objectors as well. For example, a case could be made for the hospital custodial staff, who are required to handle aborted foetuses as merely additional garbage.

Now I come to that section of the bill that addresses itself to the protection of the live foetus outside the womb. The bill provides that where a physician determines that an unborn child has the potential to remain alive outside the womb of the mother, then the physician shall use medical procedures designed to maintain the life of the child.

Let me remind the members that most foetuses die by dismemberment through suction and curettage or by suction and extraction. However, in two methods which are employed in late pregnancies, the baby may be actually aborted alive. These two methods are salting out and Caesarean section abortions. Babies surviving these methods have been recorded to have lived for several hours without care. Usually, they are discarded in a kidney dish and left in a utility room, where they cry until they die. Some are taken to the incinerator alive, and some are used for organ harvesting and experimentation.

If I might be so bold, I would ask the Premier: is this the grand design of the world-class society that we have in mind? Surely he will not permit his world-class society to be passive and uninvolved as tiny, helpless humans are left to die in such a manner, with no effort to welcome these children into the human race. It is a sad reality of the present situation that a woman who has consented to an abortion is deemed to have the right to a dead baby, and the baby that survives is considered to be a complication. Fortunately for these mothers, they are spared the horrors of witnessing their baby’s fate.

There is a nobler vision of our society that is worth striving to achieve. It is a vision in which we, as a society, treasure life as the greatest of our gifts.

I believe that this bill goes some way to reaffirming life. It seeks to ensure that individuals will be thoroughly informed about the developmental stages of life and the consequences of abortion, and it allows individuals, on moral and ethical grounds, to refuse to participate in abortions. Most important, should this bill ever be enacted into legislation, many mothers will decide to keep their babies and have their babies adopted, perhaps; for sure more babies will live.

I commend the member for St. Catharines-Brock for bringing forward this bill, and I indeed feel honoured and pleased to support it. I encourage the members of this House to choose life and, likewise, to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Harris: How much time?

The Acting Speaker: Very little time.

Mr. Harris: Is there a fast calculation?

Mr. Jackson: One minute.

Mr. Harris: One minute? Do I not have until 11 o’clock on this?

The Acting Speaker: No, there is time reserved.

Mr. Harris: In the one minute available to me, then, I want to indicate that this bill may not be perfect, but I will be supporting the bill. It is not a bill that attempts to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. It is not a bill that attempts to intervene on a woman’s rights. I think it is a bill that attempts to present a little more balance in the informed choice that a woman has to make at a very difficult time. It is a very difficult choice she has to make at a very difficult time in her life.

I too find it ironic that when the Attorney General, the Premier and the Minister of Health are all going in a direction of no balance, no attempt to look at the other side of this issue or the rights of the unborn, we are dealing with this bill in this way.

I do commend the member for bringing it forward, for allowing the debate, and I intend to support the bill.

Mr. Dietsch: First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) for taking the time out of his schedule to come down and join in the debate. I appreciate hearing his views, and I feel honoured that he has taken the time to come down and put forward in his terms what he considers to be the position of his party.

I must point out, however, that inasmuch as we talk about choice of women, we are leaving out a very important ingredient. There are three people involved in this bill: there is the woman, there is the man and there is the baby. For one of those three components to have an opportunity to overrule any of the other two areas of concern, in my opinion, is somewhat misleading; and in my opinion once again I feel it is wrong.

What I best tried to do in my own way was to put forward a principle. That principle is incorporated within this bill. It is not a bill that is put forward in terms of something from a lawyer who looks at the constitutionality. By the way, I question whether it is in fact against the constitution. I choose to think that it is not.

Also, in terms of the medical approach, I am not a professional physician, nor am I any kind of physician, and I feel that my endeavour, what I tried to bring together through this bill, was wording to provide a base, a starting area from which we can all expand and go forward. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) put in very articulate, concise terms the feeling of what we are trying to bring together. The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) addressed the constitutionality from his understanding.

1100

In as much as I appreciate the support, I want it to be clearly understood my perception of what private members’ hour was in terms that it gave me an opportunity to put forward to this Legislature a view that I know is sensitive but yet that I hold as a deep conviction, just as I know the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) holds a varying view. I do respect her for that. I do respect any of the members who have an opposing view to my own. I do however, disagree and I am sure they respect me for that opinion.

I appreciate the members who have taken the time to speak on this very important issue. The sensitivity that we are trying to deal with here is a step that I feel that can be best taken by the provincial government. A step that can be used to enhance if you will our position, to show some leadership on our part.

I think that there are members in this House who have spoken previously to this bill and I respect them for what they tried to do at that time. I checked the Hansards. In them, there were none of the areas that came into play this morning. I guess it shows our sophistication as we grow.

I request all the members of this House to support the principle. Let us work with the issue and develop it from there.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved resolution 24:

That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for a major overhaul of provincial policies and practices concerning the education of deaf people in the province of Ontario. The House, therefore, makes the following recommendations:

1. That a thorough evaluation of deaf students throughout Ontario begin immediately, such an evaluation to include, but not be limited to the following:

(a) an assessment of the reasons for the current quality of education provided to deaf students, which research shows provides few graduates of Ontario schools for the deaf and secondary schools with a greater than grade 4 reading ability;

(b) the effectiveness of current teaching methods for deaf students, which do not require the involvement of experts in deaf education when individual assessment of the capabilities of deaf children is made;

(c) the effectiveness of present classroom integration policies and support services as a result of Bill 82 (special education), which do not provide for paying the costs of interpreters;

(d) the practices of hiring deaf and hearing-impaired teachers both in schools for the deaf and in the public school systems, as there are now just eight hearing-impaired teachers among the 170 teachers in our provincial schools for the deaf, and only a handful of hearing-impaired teachers among the more than 500 teachers of the deaf in the public school system;

(e) an assessment of the provincial schools for the deaf, including their administration, public accountability and organization, since provincial schools for the deaf lack a system of public accountability, and since only one of the three schools possesses an advisory committee (that is itself appointed totally at the discretion of the superintendent of the school), and since the three schools among themselves do not use a common sign-language system;

(f) an examination of the use of American Sign Language as a language of instruction in the schools, which is now not recognized as either a heritage language or a language of instruction, and

(g) an assessment of the Ministry of Education’s role as it pertains to deaf education, an investigation into the fact that no Ontario faculty of education currently provides teacher training for the teaching of deaf students, and an assessment of the ministry’s mandate to collect province-wide data generally on issues regarding the quality, assessment, effectiveness and success of the teaching of deaf students in Ontario.

2. That the Ministry of Education take immediate steps to involve representatives of the deaf community, advocates for the hearing-impaired and parents of deaf children in all levels of the decision-making process around education for deaf people in Ontario.

3. That the Ministry of Education immediately establish targets and timetables for the hiring of deaf teachers and administrators in schools for the deaf.

4. That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Madam Speaker, this is a long resolution and, because reading it in its entirety would basically deprive some other members of their time to speak, I would like to read a curtailed version of it with the agreement of the House.

Agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House, therefore, makes the following recommendations:

1. That a thorough evaluation of deaf students throughout Ontario begin immediately, such an evaluation to include, but not be limited to the following:

(a) an assessment of the reasons for the current quality of education provided to deaf students;

(b) the effectiveness of current teaching methods for deaf students;

(d) the practices of hiring deaf and hearing-impaired teachers both in schools for the deaf and in public school systems;

(e) an assessment of the provincial schools for the deaf, including their administration, public accountability and organization;

(f) an examination of the use of American Sign Language as a language of instruction in the schools;

3. That the Ministry of Education immediately establish targets and timetables for the hiring of deaf teachers and administrators in schools for the deaf.

4. That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to take 18 minutes and reserve two.

[Remarks in American Sign Language]

What I just said is, “Good morning, I am going to talk about the deaf.” Problems of the deaf have existed for a long time without any government action. I wish that today in this House a deaf person could be standing here and speaking to members in their sign language. That unfortunately is not possible because of the total disempowerment, disfranchisement of those people over the generations, especially through the poor education that we have given them in Ontario and other jurisdictions across Canada.

There are today in the Legislature a number of people who are deaf. They are coming, as people have come recently from Gallaudet College in Washington, to say that the silence has gone on long enough, that deaf people must be heard as they choose to be heard. Their rights to determine their education and the way they should be followed in the province of Ontario are paramount. There is no longer time for us to get in their way.

I have only recently come to this issue, but I am totally consumed by it now. I have been reading the history of the systematic and systemic discrimination against the deaf that has gone on for over 100 years and the role of even great men like Alexander Graham Bell in suppressing the rights of the deaf. Members may not know that he was in fact a major spokesman at the turn of the century against the rights of deaf people to intermarry, because he wanted to stop the supposed genetic carrying on of deafness. He worked very hard against the rights of the deaf.

After the 1940s, a royal commission in this province took away the right of deaf people to be taught in sign language and insisted that they be taught orally in the province of Ontario.

I would like to quote a couple of things from that period in the 1940s. Here is an article from a paper in 1942: “In the case of our deaf children, they are left unprotected against the whims and caprices of theorists.” It says: “There is a role for sign language at the Belleville school. Pupils are given five hours of tuition a day by oral method, but are free at other times to use the sign language, but not at meals. It might not be well for them to be waving a potato at the end of a fork.”

The kinds of comments that are there and the paternalistic attitudes around people’s rights of expression that are inherent in that should be offensive to all of us. I do not think many of us realize today that the same kinds of processes are continuing in this province and across most of Canada. It is time we stood up and did something about it.

These are just some of the basic facts for members who I know will not be aware of this, because I was not:

There are 80,000 profoundly deaf people in the province of Ontario. There are 5,000 profoundly deaf children. For those who think it is in decline, they should know that from the statistics that were done in the late 1970s, in this report, the Canadian Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children and Youth in 1979, that is up from just under 4,000. It is not a declining group, as some people might indicate. There are over 500 children in our three provincial schools for the deaf and many thousands more in the public school system of the province of Ontario.

About 95 per cent are deaf from birth or are deaf before the age of two years. This has very profound implications for how their education should be considered. Ninety per cent of them -- God forgive Alexander Graham Bell -- have two hearing parents. In 50 per cent, the cause of their deafness is unknown according to the statistics from 1979. We have a continuing and ongoing problem.

I want to talk about the three schools for the deaf, where people are doing their best. They are in London, the Robarts school in Milton and in Belleville. People are working hard there to give a good education. But if we look at the figures that come in from the Canadian Hearing Society’s units around the province of Ontario and the scattered testing they have done of grade 13 graduates from those schools, we find they have a reading capacity that usually does not exceed grade 4 level. We can imagine how that is going to affect somebody going into the work community today.

In the 1920s, there were 17 deaf teachers who taught in those provincial schools. Today, out of 170 teachers, eight are hearing-impaired. None of the senior administration, including the superintendents, is deaf. I want members to think about that in terms of what that says about the hearing world inflicting its concepts of education on the deaf.

Only one of these schools has an advisory council, which may or may not include deaf people. It is totally at the whim and decision of the superintendent of that specific school. Two of the schools do not even have those advisory councils, let alone having deaf people in control of those institutions.

1110

As I have said, there is not one deaf administrator. Yesterday in the House, I raised the case of a gentleman who applied for that position, an Ontarian who now lives in British Columbia who is well recognized as one of the great Canadian educators of the deaf, who was not even called to interview. He was not called to interview because he did not have a certain piece of paper which we require, which it is impossible for a deaf person to acquire in Ontario. I will come back to that later.

I do not know if members can believe this. I found it incredible when I discovered it. We have allowed sign language back into the school system, signed English. But strangely, in our three schools for the deaf there are two sign languages instructed. One is signing exact English and the other is signed English. We do not even have the same language of instruction in sign language being used in our three schools for the deaf.

If we then look at what happens around the province in terms of our public schools, we have teachers with a bit of understanding of signing trying to teach one variation or the other of signed English or signing exact English in the various schools, and dialects of sign language are developing all over Ontario. At the same time as the rest of us in the hearing world are getting sort of North Americanized in our way of speaking and the dialects are disappearing, there is a proliferation of these dialects among the deaf themselves.

American Sign Language, conceptual language, which is recognized in some jurisdictions as a language on its own merit, is not allowed to be taught in the schools of Ontario. It is not permitted because our Education Act says the language of instruction must be English or French and therefore signed English or the langue des sourds du Québec, if that were available in Ontario, which it is not. I am sure my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) will be talking about that when she gets her chance to speak. The language that is in use in the deaf community, which is their language, American Sign Language, is not allowed to be used in the classrooms of Ontario. I can take members back to parallels in the 1940s when they did the same thing with sign language in general. It is an imposition and an affliction on our part which should be totally unacceptable.

Members may also be surprised that there are no courses in signing. It is presumed that as the deaf learn English with signed English, that will show how well they can sign, but there are no actual courses in those schools to teach them how to sign, let alone how to use the American Sign Language which everybody else uses together around the province.

If we look at Bill 82 and the public school system, according to Mr. Wollaston, the senior person in the ministry on these issues, Bill 82 has not gotten many more deaf kids into the school system -- a lot of hearing-impaired children, yes, but not the profoundly deaf. Bill 82 has enormous holes in it in terms of actually providing the required kind of education to those children. There is no money available for interpreters under Bill 82, if members can believe that.

If members think of what impediment that is then to a proper education for kids with this kind of a problem, I think they would understand how ludicrous that is. There is no guarantee that when a child goes to an individual program review committee for assessment for the kind of special education he requires in the public system, any specialized deaf educator is going to be participating there. When IQ assessments are done of these kids, they are not done with sign language, they are done in written English, which is not an indication of the person’s true intelligence quotient, no matter what one may think of any of the tests involved.

There are very few deaf teachers, and the standards which we have for the instruction and the capacity of signing of the teachers in our school system vary depending on the region. There are parts of the province, like Thunder Bay, where there are people, I suggest, who do not even meet the minimal ministry standards who are involved in teaching signing in the public school system.

The other thing I have to say is that at this stage nobody on that side of the House is going to be able to tell me how those kids are doing. Nobody is going to be able to inform me just what standards of education they are receiving in Ontario.

They come to post-secondary education. If you graduate from the schools for the deaf in this province, you basically have to go to America to get a university education. We should think about that, as legislators, in terms of our responsibilities to our citizens to provide education for them. Why would our students not have a choice between something in Ontario and the Gallaudet College?

I would admit that it is unlikely that we could afford a university for the deaf in this province and that many students will choose anyway to go to a place like Gallaudet, with the wonderful services that it provides, but Alberta, as a province, is doing more in terms of the supporting of post-secondary education for its students and allowing them the choice to stay in Alberta, if they wish, than Ontario. Over half the students who go to Gallaudet from Canada come from Ontario. There are about 70 from Ontario.

It is time we established at our universities some kind of a centre which provides specialized help, provides interpreters and provides note-takers, which will allow people who are deaf to go through the university system in Ontario as the blind are able to now.

I ask you to think of any deaf PhD you know in Ontario today. Just try to name one for me. I do not think you will find them. I have heard that there is now one who is involved in a PhD course in Ontario at this stage.

In my view, it is unthinkable that in 1988 we would not be providing those kinds of resources.

So somebody goes to Gallaudet. He takes all these fantastic courses -- I have the catalogues here for you if you would like to see them -- about education of the deaf. He comes back and he has to go to Belleville to take teacher training courses there for the deaf.

I just remind you again, in terms of this discrimination against the deaf, this is the only teacher’s training institute in Ontario that is not run by a university. I ask you, why is that? We can have it for the blind, as we do at the University of Western Ontario. Why can we not have it for the deaf, say at York or Western or wherever? It is incredible to me that is the case.

If I were to go and take the courses there and pass, as a hearing person I would get a diploma and then, after two years of teaching in the school for the deaf, I would be accredited to teach in any school in Ontario. If I am deaf and I take that course and pass, I get a letter of permission to teach in the schools for the deaf, but I never get a certification to be able to teach in the hearing schools of Ontario. If that is not an affront to the charter, I do not know what is.

The case I raised the other day of the man who I thought should have at least been called to interview -- an incredibly articulate individual with several well-written books, Clifton Francis Carbin -- points up the problem. He was not brought to interview, I am informed this morning, because he did not have a diploma in being a superintendent of education. If you cannot become a teacher in our public education system if you are deaf, how in hell’s name are you going to become a superintendent?

To have that kind of a structural roadblock in his way -- and I can give you five other names of deaf Ontarians who are in leading institutes in the United States of America or in other parts of Canada who would love to return to Ontario, to whom this government and past governments are basically saying, “There’s no role for you here under our rules” -- you surely have to see that as an incredible injustice and a loss of a wonderful resource to this province. It is time that we addressed these problems directly.

I wanted to talk a bit about preschool intervention. In this province there is virtually nothing available. There is a program down here at Sick Children’s Hospital, oral instruction again, but if you live away from one of the schools for the deaf and you have a child who is under two and you have discovered he is deaf, it is very hard to get hold of any kind of a program that is going to help that child meet his language development requirements to be able to operate in the school system. They are going to go into the school system with a major deficiency.

The term I should have used for the piece of paper Mr. Carbin has, according to a note I have been helpfully passed, is the supervisory officer’s certification paper. That is the technical term which is basically keeping people, again, out of leaving our schools.

1120

This issue is being addressed in many other jurisdictions. There is a report I would commend to all of you to read: Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. It is a report in the United States to the President and to the Congress just as of February. It says a number of things that I think are dramatically true and necessary, including a recognition of American Sign Language as a language of instruction or at least as a heritage language, so that kids can get the idea that the language they use is respected by our educators.

In this book it says -- and is this not a dangerous notion? -- that universities like Gallaudet, and I therefore suggest all our schools for the deaf, should have boards that are controlled by deaf people. What a dangerous notion that would be to the kind of systematic discrimination we have had against deaf people in the past.

People are not going to be quiet about this issue any longer. The deaf are not going to sit idly by and allow the kind of discrimination that has occurred to continue or the lack of opportunities opening up to them to continue.

It is not just happening here. In Manitoba during this last election, the deaf community came out with a whole range of suggestions that government should take up. Formally recognizing American Sign Language as the language of the deaf in the province of Manitoba was one suggestion. Others were that American Sign Language be used as the primary language of instruction in the Manitoba School for the Deaf; that there be a major push for bicultural education instead of the single view that we have at this stage; and again, in terms of the governance of all the schools in that province, that they should be under the control of deaf people and the parents of deaf children who are going to those schools.

My resolution does not attack this particular government. It is attacking a mindset that we have all had because this is a very silent disability, an easily forgotten disability in our presence. What I suggested is that there be an evaluation of all those aspects that are wrong in the provincial schools and in the public system, such as the lack of programs available at the university level and the real dearth of programs available at the preschool level; and that this government report back to this Legislature, to all of us, in a certain period of time -- I say November of this year -- with what progress it is making in turning this around, what affirmative action programs it is bringing in and what kinds of changes are being made to the way the deaf community is involved in decision-making in this province that will change this very tragic history of neglect, which is a very direct and not an indirect neglect of the deaf community of Ontario.

I implore all members of the House to support this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has reserved 15 seconds. The member for Burlington South.

Mr. Jackson: It is indeed a great honour and privilege for me to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and to speak in support of the resolution from the member for Scarborough West. I wish to state on a very personal basis how and why I will be supporting this bill. In fact, the matters raised by the member for Scarborough West have had some personal effect on my life.

I consider three events to be of significance to me as a legislator and as an individual in this province.

First, I had the experience of growing up as a child knowing my uncle who, in the midst of poverty in the city of Winnipeg, had to overcome his deafness which he carried throughout his entire life. I recall myself as a schoolboy in the 1950s, defending my uncle, out of love and respect for him, against the prejudices of that now ugly phrase “deaf and dumb.”

Second, I recall later in life the sensitive portrayal by Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, a film which had a profound effect on my life.

Third, today I wish to include the statements made by the member for Scarborough West as having a significance in my life as a legislator. For that reason I am very pleased and proud to stand with him in what I think is one of the finest speeches I have heard in this House in my three-year tenure.

As we debate this resolution, I think back to the events of the last two months when the students and hearing-impaired faculty members at Gallaudet in Washington, DC, rose to assert their moral authority, to ensure that one of their own, a deaf person, be installed as president of their institution. Their efforts and ultimate success in this endeavour moved us all.

These students and professors accomplished something more important, however. They demonstrated that the deaf and hearing-impaired suffer from a disability which is not of the mind or the soul. We were allowed very briefly into the life of one of the world’s most extraordinary learning institutions. What we saw was a university and a student body that was like no other.

The member for Scarborough West has presented a resolution which is as significant as it is lengthy. In the resolution he asked that the system for the education of the deaf be studied and examined. I support this notion. Throughout my research on this issue, I have discovered that there exists within the hearing-impaired community and the educational community a debate about the most appropriate methods of educating deaf and hearing-impaired students.

I would like, therefore, to examine three areas of concern as they relate to my honourable colleague’s resolution. First, I would like to examine the debate surrounding the notion of integration. Second, I will examine the current state of teacher training for the hearing-impaired students in our province. Finally, I will comment on the need to examine the state of Ontario’s university and college system with respect to its ability to accommodate and education Ontario’s deaf students.

The debate concerning integration rages on among parents of all learning-disabled students. Educators and parents of hearing-impaired students are caught in this quandary as well. Some parents groups, such as the Voice For Children, argue that deaf and hearing-impaired children should be integrated into a normal learning environment. They believe that these children will be given the same choices as their peers and will be well equipped to pursue a post-secondary education.

These students will also be very well prepared for the real world. Parents and educators associated with one of Ontario’s special schools for the learning-impaired believe that their approach provides the most appropriate form of education. Their schools are staffed with resident tutors who are conversant in American Sign Language and can communicate in signing. In addition, these schools offer smaller classes that provide individual instruction.

We are confronted here with two competing systems of education and many questions that need to be answered. My colleague’s request for an extensive study of the relative merits of each system should provide a forum in which many of these questions could be answered. The state of teacher training of and for the hearing-impaired requires examination. The figures quoted by my colleague in his resolution are worrisome and frightful indeed. As the member for Scarborough West notes, there are just eight hearing-impaired teachers among the 170 teachers in our provincial schools for the deaf and only a handful of hearing-impaired teachers among the more than 500 teachers of the deaf in the public school system.

Regular classroom teachers must receive further instruction in dealing with hearing-impaired students in their classes. Perhaps this could be an effective utilization of professional development and a commitment by this government. More important, however, our faculties of education must modify their curricula in an appropriate fashion. Students at our province’s educational facilities should receive instruction in the education of the hearing-impaired prior to their teaching.

Second, our schools of education should modify their programs to meet the needs of hearing-impaired teaching candidates. Perhaps the most important change that could be made to our faculties of education, and possibly attitudes in general, is to encourage the hearing-impaired to enter the educational profession themselves.

1130

A study of the problems, as suggested by the member for Scarborough West, would provide a forum for this debate and seek immediate solutions. The state of Ontario’s colleges and universities for the education and physical accommodation of the hearing-impaired requires immediate and serious examination.

At the University of Toronto, for example, a deaf student may take advantage of a service whereby he is paired with another student who will take notes for him in a particular lecture. The notetaker is paid for his or her services. While the intention of this system is laudable, it is, unfortunately, flawed by human nature. What if the notetaker is unable to attend classes on a regular basis? What if the notetaker’s handwriting is illegible? There are many practical problems with this meagre approach.

Proponents of an integrated form of education would argue that universities should be physically modified to meet the needs of the hearing-impaired. This could be accomplished by improving the acoustics and providing interpreters in lectures in which deaf or hearing-impaired students are enrolled. There are many things that can be done that are not being done now.

Another proposed solution is the establishment of a university which is devoted exclusively to the education of the deaf. I talked earlier about Gallaudet College in Washington, DC. This proud institution has a tradition dating back to the 1800s, and it has produced graduates who can compete with anyone, anytime and anywhere. Unfortunately, many deaf Canadian students who aspire to an education at the university level leave Ontario for Gallaudet. It is a shame that Ontario should be deprived of their talents.

An inquiry into the nature of post-secondary education for the deaf and hearing-impaired is vital. Thus, my colleague’s suggestion for the establishment of a committee or a call for the government to the Ministry of Education to make it an early priority to examine the state of deaf education is essential, and it is long overdue.

Passage of this resolution would heighten the public’s awareness of the problems that confront deaf students in our educational system. Unfortunately, those members of society who are deaf or hearing-impaired still battle a perception that they are unable to compete and achieve in our society.

I have been, frankly, quite disappointed with the replies of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to the incisive and important questions asked of him by the member for Scarborough West regarding this very important issue. The minister’s replies have been no longer than one or two sentences. I certainly hope that this type of short and terse response does not reflect the attitude of this government with respect to the long-overdue and proper education of deaf students in Ontario.

In closing, I would like to quote from Harlan Lane’s work, When the Mind Hears. He states, “What matters deafness of the ear, when the mind hears? The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind.”

On behalf of my caucus, I wish to indicate my total and absolute support for the resolution as presented by the member for Scarborough West and I beg that all members of this House give this resolution and the member their full support.

Mrs. O’Neill: May I first congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough West on the deep commitment that he has shown to this issue of education of the hearing-impaired As all members are aware, the education of all exceptional individuals is an important matter that deserves the full attention of this Legislature.

Although I understand the concerns expressed in this resolution, I suggest that it represents a rather narrow view of the provisions of the education of the hearing-impaired, representative only of the profoundly deaf.

The hearing-impaired are not a homogeneous, distinct population for whom social, educational or other measures can be universally prescribed. Hearing-impaired persons are children who are unique, individuals with widely varying needs and abilities, for whom a wide continuum of services and educational opportunities are necessary. Differential hearing loss demands different school placements, communication methods and support programs. The hearing-impaired child in Ontario may be placed in a variety of school settings: the regular class, the regular class with withdrawal or itinerant support, the special class in a school board program or, indeed, a provincial school.

The decision of where a hearing-impaired student should be placed is not made in a vacuum, as the motion suggests, without the support of deaf educators or experts on deafness. In determining the placement of an exceptional student, it is through the mandated identification and placement review committee that the particular expertise necessary to conduct the deliberations is sought. In fact, staff from provincial schools for the deaf are often involved in local-board IRPC decisions. In addition, parents are always encouraged to participate in these committee hearings and can themselves supply resource people with expertise in their child’s exceptionality. Indeed, advocates for the hearing-impaired are on many special-education advisories in school boards across this province.

The resolution makes reference in section 1(g) to an apparent lack of teacher training for teachers of the deaf. Many members may be aware of the excellent training facilities, which have already been mentioned, in Belleville, Ontario, where qualified teachers take part in a one-year program to enable them to teach hearing-impaired students. Within the university system, members may remember that in the past York University offered teacher education for teachers of the deaf. This program is presently suspended due to the small number of applicants, though I wish to point out that York continues to offer courses at the master’s level for further professional development of teachers with basic qualifications in deaf education. In addition, discussions are currently under way with an Ontario faculty of education regarding a preservice training program being offered for teachers of the deaf.

The resolution also seems to suggest that schools and programs for the deaf are not sufficiently monitored by this province. This is simply not the case. Provincial schools for the blind and deaf were recently audited by the Provincial Auditor and they are subject to ongoing scrutiny and governance by the Ministry of Education. As an aside, members may be interested to know that the auditor reported that there was in fact a decline in enrolment in these schools, partly because local school boards have been able and anxious to develop programs for the hearing-impaired, these programs formerly offered only in provincial schools for the deaf.

It should further be pointed out that programs developed for the hearing-impaired by the school boards are governed by ministry guidelines and, once established, are monitored by the ministry’s regional offices. The implicit assumption of the resolution seems to be that a solution to the challenges of hearing impairment lies solely in the introduction and promotion of sign language and deaf persons teaching in our schools and classes for the hearing-impaired. The number of teachers of the deaf who are themselves deaf in Ontario and elsewhere has been closely related to the communication philosophy and methodologies employed in programs for hearing-impaired children.

Historically, philosophical positions have been very polarized: oral, stressing speech-reading and auditory-training methods; or manual, stressing sign-language communication systems. In oral systems, deaf teachers were and are at a very serious disadvantage. The teaching of speech and the enhancement of auditory functioning demand functional hearing. Ontario’s schools and programs for the deaf were exclusively oral from the late 1920s until the late 1970s. As a result, very few opportunities did exist for deaf teachers.

Today, however, a comprehensive range of services and programs for hearing-impaired children exists throughout this province, at provincial schools and in many boards. It is recognized that deaf education is not a simple either/or choice -- oral or signing -- but rather that differential hearing loss demands differential school placements, communication methods and support programs. Deaf persons and their abilities, unique understandings and experiences have a valued importance within this system. Deaf teachers, counsellors and other professionals are playing an important role in those areas and programs where their particular skills and insights in communication and deaf culture can be appropriately employed.

1140

Deaf teachers are employed mainly in total communication programs in the provincial schools and a few in the local school boards. There are certainly no impediments to a qualified deaf person becoming a teacher of the deaf in this province. Indeed, there is a special consideration given to hearing-impaired persons in the regulations of the ministry, which allow them to circumvent some of the requirements demanded of regular teachers, which would be very difficult for them to fulfil.

I am happy to report that the number of hearing-impaired teachers and counsellors in our education system is growing. I do not see that the Ontario education system has somehow neglected the needs of hearing-impaired students. I am enthusiastic about the strides we are taking in this province in this area of education, and I can state with confidence that our record compares favourably with that of other systems in North America.

In fact, I found it very interesting to learn that provincial schools for the deaf have a dropout rate two thirds lower than the rest of the province, and one third of the graduates with hearing impairment go on to post-secondary education. This is not to minimize the educational difficulties inherent in hearing impairment. I believe that our approach to the teaching of the hearing-impaired should be constantly reviewed. In fact, as many members know, boards of education must undertake and submit an annual review of their special education programs.

I would agree, however, that a broader review may be appropriate. Unfortunately, the one proposed by the resolution is inadequate. I believe it is inadequate because, as I have said, it focuses too narrowly on the concerns of only one segment of the hearing-impaired advocacy community. Rather, we should be placing those concerns within a broader spectrum of all needs, services and programs for the hearing-impaired children of this province. I believe that a wider and longer review may be appropriate. I therefore will be voting against this motion while at the same time advocating a more comprehensive provincial role in the hearing-impaired programs of Ontario.

Miss Martel: I want to say in beginning my remarks that I am very pleased to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Scarborough West. I want to thank him in particular for asking me to participate and for giving me that opportunity.

It should not be a surprise to any members in this House that he has taken up this cause and that he is showing a tremendous interest in the deaf and hearing-impaired students in this province, because for as long as I have known him -- and I knew him before I came to this Legislature as a member -- he has been a dedicated fighter on behalf of people who are least able to speak for themselves. Whether he has been speaking for the poorest of the poor, as he did with all his work on poverty, or whether, as in this case, he is speaking for people who literally in many instances cannot speak for themselves, I have always known him as a dedicated fighter on behalf of those kinds of people and on behalf of their causes. I want to say that I am very pleased to be associated, even in some small measure, with this issue in particular.

I want to respond very briefly to the last speaker from the Liberal Party and make several comments. There is no doubt that the resolution is geared in many ways to people who are profoundly deaf in this province, and there is no doubt we agree that, for many of the hearing-impaired, we are looking at special means and ways in which they can be treated in the regular school system. But I have to say, on the basis of the resolution put forward by my colleague, where he points out that graduates of Ontario schools for the deaf and hearing-impaired students who are graduating from normal schools have a grade 4 reading ability in this province, that if that is the best we can do in this province, there is something seriously wrong in the way we are responding to deaf children and to children who are hearing-impaired.

The second thing I want to point out is that she made note of the fact that the provincial schools are audited by the Provincial Auditor. I want to point out to her that while we agree with that, we are also extremely concerned that, of the three, only one in fact has an advisory committee. People who are put on that advisory committee are selected by the superintendent of the school. We have no guarantee that hearing-impaired students, their parents or any groups who are advocating for the deaf or hearing-impaired in this province are going to be represented on advisory committees of those three provincial schools. So we have some difficulty with the fact that the government is not going to support this, because we think this would go a long way in addressing some of those concerns.

I want to go back to some of the points my colleague made, to reinforce them and to make two points in particular about special problems we have in the north concerning this situation. First, my colleague pointed out, and I want to reiterate the problem, the concern we have about the quality of education for deaf students and for hearing-impaired in this province. If they are coming out as graduates with reading ability at grade 4, then there is something seriously wrong and we are not serving them properly. There has to be a complete overhaul if we are going to give them the same opportunities as hearing children in this province have.

Let me say that the lack of access for hearing-impaired teachers to the regular school system or to provincial schools is unbelievable to me. The people who are best qualified and best able to teach children who are deaf or hearing-impaired are not well represented and are barely represented in either the regular schools or the three provincial schools. It seems to me that we would be much better off, as a Legislature, to look at the example of Gallaudet College, where, in fact, an administrator who is hearing-impaired has now been assigned to administer that university. There was a major upheaval, and I could almost say a rebellion, on the part of the students in order to get that person in that place, because it was their feeling that they would best be served by a person who was one of their own in that sense.

I would say that in Ontario we are far from achieving that, and this government certainly has to make some major advances and a major push in that regard to ensure that the people who are deaf and who are hearing-impaired are being served by people who understand their concerns and their situation much more clearly than the rest of us in the hearing world can.

Third, we have not taken any look in the education system in this province at the use of American Sign Language as a language that the deaf or the hearing-impaired can use. While there is a great deal of controversy around the language itself and there is a great deal of controversy among parents as to whether that sign language might impair speech development itself, the fact of the matter is that American Sign Language is being used in the community and it is being used extensively outside of the education system. If it is being used that extensively, then it must be responding to the needs of the hearing-impaired and the deaf in our society.

There is no reason this Legislature should not look at the possibility of implementing, in some way, American Sign Language in our school system to provide for services which I am sure the deaf and the hearing-impaired would like to have. There is no reason that ASL cannot be used as a heritage language in the first case and exact English or exact French can be implemented from that point on. It could be used as the forerunner to the other languages in the school system, and I certainly think we have to be looking at that possibility.

Finally, in terms of general concerns, I go back to the point my colleague raised: that there is very little in the way of early intervention for deaf or hearing-impaired students in this province. He pointed out that over 90 per cent of the deaf are born deaf or become deaf before the age of two, and our system is not responding to the needs of those preschool kids who really, in their formative years, need that type of training if they are going to be on the same footing and have the same advantages that the rest of us who hear in this world enjoy.

In particular, the problems, the regional disparities, make the point even more obvious that there has to be some greater commitment on the part of this government to provide those services. If you are fortunate enough to live near the provincial schools, then you can have your child in those types of programs, their needs can be met and they can be given a better chance as they start to move through the elementary and secondary school system. But I must say that if you do not live near those schools or you do not live near the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, then you have some real problems, and immediately your child is disadvantaged when he begins to go through the elementary and the secondary school system.

I will take just a moment to look at the problem in northern Ontario, which is specifically distressing to me, and I hope members of this Legislature can become aware of it. The first thing is that there is no provincial school for the deaf anywhere in northern Ontario, so if your child is profoundly deaf and requires the services of the provincial schools, then you have to uproot that child and move him south. It is a tremendous trauma to the family and to the children involved that they cannot stay in the north.

Those of us who live in the north experience this in the health care system all the time, but in terms of this type of education they are forced to leave the north and get their training and spend their educational years somewhere in southern Ontario. I think that is a tragic situation and it is a tragedy that this government and the school system have to force families to send their children south if they cannot receive that type of education in the north.

1150

En ce qui concerne les étudiants de langue française, il existe un problème majeur. C’est qu’il n’y a pas de communication pour les sourds dans le Nord de l’Ontario. C’est-à-dire que la seule forme de communication qu’ils puissent comprendre, c’est la communication orale. Il n’existe pas de langage des sourds, comme au Québec, où les personnes peuvent parler par signes. Les francophones qui habitent dans le Nord et qui ont besoin de communiquer en français, doivent absolument aller au Québec pour recevoir de l’instruction dans leur propre langage.

I must say, for those French families who are forced then to send their children, not to the south, because they cannot receive education in sign language in the south, but to Quebec, the situation for them is even more traumatic and, in my mind, it is even more unjust.

What can this government do? This government, in the first place, could vote for the resolution, which would go a long way in at least starting to look at some of the problems that my colleague and myself and the member from the Conservative Party have raised. I must say that I am extremely distressed to learn that the government will not do that and that the government in fact believes this is too restrictive or that we are meeting the needs of only one particular group.

I say to the members opposite that we are concerned about needs for deaf students and for the hearing-impaired. We are not trying to locate it specifically in one group and to respond only to their needs. We feel there has to be a complete assessment done of the quality of education that is being provided to deaf students and to the hearing-impaired. If they only have a grade 4 level of reading when they graduate, there is something seriously wrong and it means the system has to be overhauled.

We believe this government has to take the first step and do a complete review of the facilities and the policies related to the deaf and whether the deaf are involved in any way, shape or form in their own education, how that is being implemented and how that is being performed throughout Ontario. I say that this government has to look seriously at providing facilities and training for French students in this province and for students in northern Ontario so that they do not have to leave.

I encourage all members of this House to take this question seriously, to look at the broader goal we are trying to obtain and to vote with the member for Scarborough West for this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the members to keep the private conversations to a minimum, please, so we can hear the members talking.

Mr. Cureatz: I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I can only surmise that we do have some guests in our public gallery who also have some interest with regard to the resolution that is before us this morning, and I can say to them a couple of things.

The first is that, although when you look about the chamber it may appear that members are doing some other work, and indeed they are, that is not to say they are not interested in this resolution. Indeed, I can assure you a topic of this nature strikes close to the hearts of all of us, because a topic like this is not necessarily partisan, as my honourable friend who has brought forward the resolution mentioned in his opening remarks. It is a resolution that strikes at every member here, notwithstanding his or her political affiliation. I have to say that, because here I am, as a Conservative, supporting a New Democratic Party member with regard to the proposal.

I can assure you that, at times, I have had difficulties in supporting the resolutions from the honourable member. I can think of the nuclear-free debate, in which I had some problems trying to decipher how we were going to control nuclear weapons here in Ontario.

Notwithstanding that -- and, of course, I have concerns about nuclear weapons -- I can say with regard to this resolution that I have had some personal experience through my constituency work, and I have been trying to explain to all the new Liberal back-benchers that that is what counts in this assembly: looking after your constituents, not being told what to do by the front four over there. I will talk more about that this afternoon in my budget debate.

Interestingly enough, in my own constituency --

Mr. Mahoney: Have you got a new speech? I’m getting tired of this one.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the landfill sites?

Mr. Cureatz: I will be talking about landfill sites too.

In my own constituency, when I was first elected in 1977, a humble few years ago, one of the first problems I encountered was in regard to a family trying to get some funding to place its two daughters at the Washington school for the deaf. That was a problem I encountered, which I realized then, notwithstanding that we were the government, posed some financial difficulties for my constituent and for the students. I had a learning experience and was a little surprised to find out, I say to my colleague who brought forward the resolution, the lack of instruction and the lack of higher-education facilities available to students --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The many private conversations are impairing the hearing of the Speaker and the members who would like to listen to the member making his presentation.

Mr. Cureatz: The result was that after some hard work and many phone calls and weeks of investigation, we were able to have some success in giving some assistance to my two young students who were impaired in hearing.

I give credit to the member for trying to focus on the difficulties that this area presents, and I can say to her, I guess, that quite often with the larger issues that are before us in this chamber, be it free trade, Sunday shopping, yes, landfill sites, we quite often brush over some of those other concerns which are, in my mind, probably of equal concern. Why? Because they affect our own constituents, and that is why we have been elected, to represent them here in these chambers.

I am surprised at the still archaic method used at the university level, here at the University of Toronto, as indicated by my own colleague, of having a student taking down notes beside an impaired student. You would think with modern-day technology we would have made further advancements in those areas, so that those impaired of hearing who are trying to seek a higher education would have available to them all the technology available to those of us who are not so incapacitated.

What really surprised me, of course, was the speech of one of my Liberal colleagues, the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill), and I can only say to her that after one has had the opportunity of being here for a number of years, one finds out that one is being manipulated by the cabinet and by the front four, because an issue like this comes forward which affects individuals, which is not partisan whatsoever and then we hear --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Oh, no. Surely not manipulated.

Mr. Cureatz: Listen. I know. I have given speeches like hers before, when I was in government, and you wind up defending the system, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and I say to the House leader, and you defend the ministry and you defend the minister, and there is a mad rush in caucus about how a resolution like this cannot be passed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: And she said she is not supporting it, so I can only presume the rest of the Liberals are not supporting it. I can only say to the Liberal caucus --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: I have just heard from my Liberal seatmate that he is supporting it, and that gives me great encouragement that the Liberal caucus has not been whipped into a vote against the resolution.

With the short time I have left, I want to bring to members’ attention comments by Rev. Bob Rumball. I do not know if members have had the opportunity of hearing him speak. I have, many times, through various brotherhood nights in Oshawa, Bowmanville, in my own Rotary Club in Bowmanville, and I can say that a more sincere, dedicated person I have never met.

His comments about his disgruntlement with the present Liberal administration were noted in a headline in the Toronto Sun, “Grit Plans for Deaf Slammed.” I can only say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), for whom I have a great deal of respect, because I know he has great sincerity for his position in carrying out his job in that ministry:

“The reverend indicated that the minister told him that the proposed complex would include a nursing home for the deaf, a shelter for battered and abused deaf people, and a permanent residence for multihandicapped deaf adults.

Apparently the minister flatly turned him down. I can only say to the minister that I trust he and his staff will have the opportunity of reviewing the plans. Possibly we could incorporate some of the aspects my colleague has brought forward in the resolution about some of the difficulties the impaired have in terms of education, seeking higher education at colleges and universities, being trained by some of their own, and encouraging those students who are not incapacitated who are seeking higher degrees in education to have some fundamental basis in terms of training the deaf, so that we can open up this whole aspect of the impaired and the deaf and what the resolution is trying to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time is up. The member for Scarborough West will wind up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the 15 seconds I have, I would like to thank three people: Gary Malkowski and Patti Shores-Herman, who are upstairs, for their education of me in the last few weeks, and Kirk Ferguson, who is presently interpreting for them. I would like to invite members to meet some of these people, who will be talking about their experiences in a press conference following this.

1205

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

The House divided on Mr. Dietsch’s motion for second reading of Bill 123, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Callahan, Daigeler, Dietsch, Farnan, Ferraro, Furlong, Haggerty, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Lipsett, Lupusella, Marland, Martel, McCague, McGuinty, McLean, Owen, Pelissero, Pollock, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Runciman, Sola, Sweeney, Tatham, Villeneuve.

Nays

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Brown, Bryden, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Charlton, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. S., Curling, Elliot, Elston, Fawcett, Fulton, Grandmaître, Grier, Hart, Hošek, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, Laughren, LeBourdais, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuigan, Morin-Strom;

Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Poole, Rae, B., Ramsay, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Swart, Velshi, Ward, Wildman, Wilson, Wong.

Ayes 28; nays 60.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. R. F. Johnston has moved resolution 24.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:11 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

“A WORLD-CLASS EMPIRE”

Mr. Farnan: A World-Class Empire:

The emperor was proud of his empire and he wanted all his subjects to share this pride, so he urged his three advisers to help his subjects to better appreciate the wonderful empire in which they resided.

“Perhaps,” suggested the emperor, “you can uplift their spirits without necessarily addressing their needs.”

The emperor’s advisers did not fail him. “Let us proclaim a message of excellence throughout the land,” they said. “Remind the villagers that their problems will be studied by an emperor’s council, that there are centres of excellence somewhere in the kingdom, that it is a great privilege to live in a world-class empire. Let us encourage the serfs to forget their toil and their heavy tax burden by rejoicing in the glory of our globally competitive empire.”

“Splendid,” said the emperor. “Order huge quantities of ink, quills and parchment, bells and horses, whatever it takes. Hire more scribes and messengers and town criers. I want no expense spared. Spend, spend, spend. Remember, this is a world-class empire.”

The emperor’s subjects were puzzled. They would have preferred more homes, hospitals and schools, but the emperor had made up his mind. His subjects must learn that every world-class empire comes at a price.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday, I commented about the neglect of Ontario’s rural poor in the recent budget. Today, I want to point out that many farmers who are in some degree of financial difficulty will face unexpected increases in their interest payments due to a 60 per cent reduction in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

In the 1987 budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) decided to provide 100 per cent coverage instead of the expected 70, bless his soul. I asked whether that had anything to do with an event that was to occur on September 10, 1987. Not one word was said during the 1987 election campaign about coverage dropping by 60 per cent in 1988. Again, during the election, not one word was said of a reduction in the OFFIRR program.

Many farmers have already borrowed operating funds from their bank for spring seeding, never expecting a 60 per cent cut in their OFFIRR benefits.

We have had the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) holding shrimp-and-booze receptions. We have had beer flowing and flying at the Liberal staff parties in this building. We have had the Treasurer telling taxpayers not let them drink milk, but let them drink beer.

Now, as reported in the Toronto Star, we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) telling farmers if they do not like the OFFIRR cut, let them go bankrupt.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. D. R. Cooke: As Mental Health Week in Canada draws to a close, it seems appropriate to mention the progress achieved by this government in the area of community mental health and also to note that there is still a great deal to do to ensure that community support is available for the greater number of mentally ill who, with the encouragement of succeeding governments, wish to live their lives in the community.

Research has shown that prolonged hospitalization aggravates the behaviour and symptoms of the mentally ill. It is for this reason that governments have acted in placing the psychiatrically disadvantaged into their home communities. Funding for community-based mental health programs has increased markedly since 1985. It is anticipated that by 1991 the number of those served in the community will double to over 200,000. That being said, there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done in this area. It is not enough to say that numbers will double when there are now people waiting.

Since 1979, general spending on health care has increased at almost three times the rate of increased spending for those who are psychiatrically disabled. While we have started to provide real community support for these people, the number of after-care workers is still inadequate. With the number of patients in psychiatric institutions declining, it is important to consider transferring funding to an area where the need now exists. Let us proceed with as much haste as possible to relieve the current waiting list for services.

CITY OF WELLAND

Mr. Swart: As many people will know, with the lower demand for basic metals and with the demise of the textile industry, the city of Welland has gone through some pretty rough times in the last few years, but the people and leadership there have a resilience and an initiative that are unique. Starting this summer, Welland will be known as the city of murals.

Already, there is a mural measuring 6-by-23 metres on the front of the Seaway Mall depicting the canal and other early history of the city. At least 13 more of these eye-catching, local-theme, permanent, exciting murals will be unveiled. Another 35 of these or other major art objects will follow in the next year or two. One will be the full height of the 10-storey building on which it will be located. All will be the work of world-renowned artists. Thanks to good leadership, the idea has caught on, and the people of Welland are enthusiastic about it. The budget of $300,000 is several times the original one set about a year ago, and already five sixths of the amount has been donated.

There is every reason to believe that this will transform the image of Welland from that of a heavy industrial city to that of an extremely attractive tourist centre. Industry is still important, but soon Welland will be known as the greatest outdoor art gallery in Canada. Only one other community in this nation has accomplished what Welland is doing -- Chemainus, British Columbia, and it has been a huge success. Welland will even surpass that effort.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Runciman: In his budget, also known as the great tax ripoff, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) chose to treat eastern Ontario with utter disdain. His two-paragraph reference to that important region was innocuous, at best. In essence, the budget says that all is well in the east. Well, horsefeathers.

When reaching such an outrageously inaccurate conclusion, the Treasurer obviously does not choose to make a distinction between Ottawa-Carleton and the rest of eastern Ontario. For example, does he know that in eastern Ontario, excluding Ottawa-Carleton, the percentage of families earning under $10,000 per year and under $5,000 per year is well above the provincial average? Does he know that the average family income in eastern Ontario is almost $5,000 below the provincial average? Obviously, the Treasurer is unaware of these facts and many others, yet he has the unmitigated gall to say all is well.

This government seemingly cares not a whit for eastern Ontario. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay), who has no idea where eastern Ontario begins or ends, cancels a much-needed young offenders facility in the east for crass political reasons, and even the insultingly meagre eastern Ontario development fund, announced almost two years ago, remains on the drawing board.

Eastern Ontario merits attention, but all that this government and its Treasurer have given it is the back of their hand. That callous treatment will come back to haunt them.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I rise to raise my voice in objection to the comment of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) that it is all right for farmers to go out of business, to go bankrupt if they cannot make their interest payments, and that it is acceptable for this government, after providing 100 per cent coverage to bring down interest rates to about eight per cent last year for the family farm, to cut that by 60 per cent for this year.

It is obvious that this government, for all its rhetoric and for all the nice comments made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food about commitment to agriculture in Ontario, does not give a whit for the family farm. The comment made by the minister the other day that he is somehow going to come up with a program for long-term debt does not give any assistance right now to anybody who is facing a serious increase in immediate interest payments because of the cuts in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

1340

It is time we dealt with long-term debt issues for the family farm but, in the interim, the government should be maintaining the OFFIRR program at 100 per cent. It is one of the few successful programs for farming in Ontario, and I guess that is the reason this government decided to cut it. Whatever is working for family farming and agriculture in Ontario obviously must be cut by the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East, for up to 42 seconds.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I want to draw the attention of members of this Legislature to the very shoddy work that is being done by this government with regard to questions in Orders and Notices. There have been many questions placed on the order paper by me and other people in response to which we have had interim answers saying: “We are looking into it. We are going to do what we can to get you the answer.” They have been on for over six or nine months.

I say to the government House leader, why does he not whip his ministers into shape and get some answers for the members and the public? We need answers. These are very important questions and the public has a right to know what the answers are.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am rising to inform the House that I have received a report from my ministry officials on the internal investigation carried out recently by the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. That report concerns the circumstances surrounding the recent events in London involving two patients from the St. Thomas institution.

As members will know, there are charges before the courts relating to that incident. However, my ministry officials assure me that comprehensive procedures regarding implementing the conditions of loosened warrants are in place and were followed by the hospital.

In light of this, I have asked the mental health operations branch of my ministry to have an independent assessment done as soon as possible of the risk management systems at our psychiatric hospitals. This will ensure that the best possible monitoring systems are in place.

As members will know, the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review is responsible for reviewing the cases of patients on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. The board is established under the federal Criminal Code and is therefore within federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Thomas Callon, chairman of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, has recently visited a number of psychiatric institutions in the province, meeting with experts in forensic psychiatry to discuss some of the difficulties surrounding patients being held on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants.

A tiny fraction of patients on such warrants in our psychiatric hospitals suffer from the kinds of psychopathic disorders that do not respond to existing treatments and may present a danger to others. Mr. Justice Callon is moving to ensure that, as far as possible, clinical assessments of patients identify those presenting the greatest risk to others.

With this information in hand, the board can recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that these few individuals should be in secure settings such as the Oak Ridge division of Penetanguishene or the regional treatment centre at Kingston Penitentiary, which is a psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act.

The system under which individuals are held under Lieutenant Governor’s warrants has been in place for some time within the jurisdiction of the federal Criminal Code. In fact, my ministry is on record as generally supporting amendments to federal legislation which was tabled in the House of Commons in 1986 but has yet to be introduced there. I will be urging the federal government to proceed with legislation as soon as possible, as it may allow a more appropriate placement of persons with serious mental illnesses.

I want to re-emphasize that this government is committed to ensuring the best quality of care for the mentally ill within the psychiatric units of our general hospitals, the province’s psychiatric hospitals and throughout our expanded community mental health programs.

In closing, let me emphasize that my primary goal is, as always, to ensure public safety.

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It has been widely reported in the past few days that a number of provincially funded organizations and institutions have entered into transactions for the sale and leaseback of public assets, including equipment and library books. Other institutions may be planning similar transactions.

I have serious reservations about this practice. These transactions result in the creation of a tax write-off through the transfer of assets from a nontaxable entity to a taxable one.

The sale and leaseback of capital assets is an accepted financing vehicle in the private sector. However, I am concerned about the appropriateness of this type of activity where it involves assets of public institutions the province supports. This practice also has implications for the normal process of determining provincial funding support for these institutions.

Although this financing vehicle supplements the budget of the institutions, it does so at a very high cost to the taxpayers and with relatively little benefit to the institutions. Out of every dollar in reduced government revenue, institutions receive as little as 10 cents while intermediaries pocket as much as 90 cents.

While the sale and leaseback arrangements are permissible under existing tax legislation, they represent an inappropriate use of the tax system at great expense to the taxpayers. I have directed ministry staff to undertake a full review of the implications of sale and leaseback and similar tax-driven leasing arrangements undertaken by publicly funded organizations. The purpose of the review is to develop an appropriate policy to prohibit these transactions which in essence distort the intent of existing tax legislation. It is not the purpose of this review to interfere with normal leasing of equipment and other assets.

We will also be discussing with other governments the possibility of a co-ordinated approach to this issue.

In the interim, I am announcing today a moratorium on all sale and leaseback arrangements by organizations and institutions funded by Ontario.

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Reville: I want to compliment the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on a balanced response to a difficult situation which involves the juxtaposition of the criminal justice system and our mental health system. I do wish that when her officials continue the review, they will also review what the treatment possibilities are at the Oak Ridge centre. It is my view that the treatments offered there are inadequate to the purpose and that more thought and more money must be invested in those treatments.

I worry a little bit about the possibility that Mr. Justice Callon will have constitutional problems if his board commits people who have not been convicted of a crime to a federal penitentiary.

I also think it is disappointing that the only statement the Minister of Health has made during Mental Health Week concerns about one percent of the people in the mental health system.

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

Mr. B. Rae: In responding to the statement by the Treasurer, I was not surprised but, I think it is fair to say, disappointed that, in making his statement, he could have said nothing of why it is that our public institutions have felt it necessary to use a sale and leaseback arrangement which may well be inappropriate. I happen to believe it is inappropriate, in the sense that it ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money and the money does not go directly to those institutions.

But I am really quite amazed that the Treasurer could have made his statement saying that institutions will not be allowed to use this particular financial vehicle without at least recognizing that the reason the University of Western Ontario had decided to sell and then lease back its own library was because it was not getting the money from the provincial government that would allow it to maintain that library.

That is the problem, and not once in his statement does the Treasurer say a word about sitting down with the institutions to discuss the reasons that moved publicly supported institutions to do what they felt was necessary. The reason they did it was because they went to the government and did not get the kinds of answers they were expecting and hoping for.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason our public institutions have gone to this is as a desperate last resort. If the Treasurer does not understand that, he does not understand precisely what is going on in every public institution, with respect to the funding of libraries, to the funding of university equipment and to the funding of the basic infrastructure that has been let slide for too long in the province.

1350

I think it is irresponsible for the Treasurer to get up in this House and say he is going to be discussing with other governments the possibility of a co-ordinated approach, that he is going to prohibit the transactions because they distort the intent of existing tax legislation, and at the same time does not stand in his place and say: “I am chastened. I now recognize that these institutions have been forced to go to some lender in order to find ways of getting a few extra bucks for the library or for the equipment or whatever it may be, and the government of Ontario recognizes that.”

I think it is fair to say that things have reached such a desperate state in many of our public institutions that they felt forced to do it. It is a profound sadness to me that the Treasurer, in his statement, made no recognition -- not a glimpse, not a glimmer, not a hint -- that he understood what it is that has moved these institutions to take advantage of the tax system in this way, to take advantage of the federal tax act in this way and to use a vehicle that may be inappropriate, but frankly, the government of Ontario and the Liberal Party has not left them with very much choice.

Mr. Harris: I too am shocked by the statement of the Treasurer today. Typically, this government is always attacking the symptoms without recognizing that these symptoms are an example of an underlying, fundamental problem that is there. We have seen it time and time and again. They cannot continue to just throw money out there without looking at how the money is being spent. There is example after example.

Here we have institutions that have gone -- albeit a measure none of us, I think, would support -- to extraordinary means because they do not have the funding in the right areas they need to run their institutions, whether they are hospitals, schools, universities or community colleges.

We see this with the lack of affordable housing. This government has done the same thing. We have a problem with conversion of apartment buildings to condominiums. So what do we do? We attack the symptom and we ban the conversion. Then we cannot understand why nobody will build apartment buildings.

Every time the government brings in a measure like this, every time it attacks a symptom, it is making the problem worse. They have thrown dollars into the health care system, for example. Where do they go? Last year, Ontario health insurance plan billings by doctors were up over 17 per cent. This year, OHIP billings by doctors: over 17 per cent. That is where the money goes. Over $2 billion has gone into that since they have taken office. I know they saved $50 million, but when you look at what is happening where the money is going, every time they attack a symptom, they do not get at the problem and they make it worse. The nurses’ association is paying the price and the hospitals are paying the price.

We have example after example where they will throw money willy-nilly into various ministries and say, “What good boys are we.” Do they not understand? They are saying, “Oh, it’s because you squeezed them for so many years.” During the depression they were squeezed, but tell me why hospital after hospital, school board after school board, university after university, community college after community college says the problem is worse today under a prosperous, booming Ontario than it was during the recession.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I want to comment briefly on the statement by the Minister of Health today. I think most of us on this side of the House will find it extremely disappointing, to say the least. This statement will provide absolutely no solace to the parents of the victim in London, or to the residents of the area or to Ontarians generally who have forensic facilities in their communities.

It says absolutely nothing about the St. Thomas- London incident -- a complete whitewash -- and says that comprehensive procedures are in place. Obviously they did not work, and the minister is not addressing that at all. She professes to be concerned about public safety, yet her friends on the standing committee on public accounts killed an attempt for an independent assessment.

Today, she continues to toss up the jurisdictional red herring. The Provincial Auditor said it was not a jurisdictional problem. She knows full well her government changed the act in 1986 so that cabinet no longer approved the loosening of warrants. All the appointees to the review board are provincial appointees, and she continues to suggest that she does not have jurisdiction,

This is apparently a very irresponsible effort to cover up a process that almost cost a young girl her life.

Mrs. Cunningham: I want to speak to that statement as well. I am very concerned that this internal review has been carried out and it has not been made public. I will be speaking to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) at the end of this day and asking for that report so that I can go back to London, where there is a meeting taking place with the parents. I will need that for Saturday’s meeting.

I am also concerned about some of the statements that have been made. Obviously, it is my understanding that there have been new facilities planned around Oak Ridge in Penetanguishene and the regional treatment centre in Kingston, and nothing has happened on those promises. In my readings, I certainly saw some plans.

I would also like to state that it is common knowledge that there is a shortage of psychiatrists to work in these kinds of institutions. We do have problems and I hope that the next review, which seems to be a monitoring review, will be carried much farther than I understand it would be carried today. What we really need very much is an external review of this process and of the problems that are taking place.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Treasurer, known affectionately as Spud Nixon, Party Animal.

An hon. member: I thought I recognized him.

An hon. member: Old Spud.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Here’s looking at you.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: They may have seen him before.

I wonder if the minister can explain why it is that a family that lives at the poverty line pays income tax, but Brascan, which is, I am sure the minister will know, the company that owns the company that makes beer many people in this province drink, does not pay any income tax at all to the government of Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that the base of the corporation income tax has a number of tax preferences that are designed to encourage corporations that make a profit to plough that profit back into an expansion of their operations and are designed to give employment to our people and prosperity to the country and the province.

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Finance made it very clear that he did not share that logic when it comes to our richest citizens. We used to give out annually a Golden Loophole Award in Ottawa, which would be given to those hundreds of individuals making more than $50,000 who did not pay any income tax. The government of Canada said it is going to be closing that loophole.

I wonder why, if it is good enough to close that loophole for our richest citizens, as individuals, it is not good enough for the government of Ontario to do exactly the same thing for those 25,000 profitable companies that are making money each and every year in Ontario, why it is not good enough for them to pay income tax when it is good enough for the family that is making $23,000 a year in Ontario to pay the government of Ontario plenty of money.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not think we are arguing about whether Ontario should parallel the tax base of the federal government on corporation income tax, which we do in almost every particular. Beyond that, we have a capital tax whereby all these corporations pay to the Treasury of the province, as corporations, an amount based on their capital commitment. So all these companies do pay tax at the provincial level.

Mr. B. Rae: We are talking here about income tax that is not being levied on 25,000 companies doing business in Ontario that make money, and we are talking about an income tax that is levied on a family that makes somewhere around $20,000 and does pay income tax. The Treasurer would raise somewhere between $300 million and $400 million if he had a minimum corporate tax in Ontario. It would cost him just one third or one quarter of that to cut off the income tax rolls all those families that are either at or below the poverty line. Why does he not do it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We are talking about tax on corporations, which led me to tell the honourable member and the members of the House about the capital tax, which I am sure they are all aware of.

The second part of the question has to do with the tax payable by low-income families and citizens. I am glad to be able to report to the House that the figures given to the House yesterday by the honourable member in this connection were inaccurate. As honourable members know, and I am sure everybody is aware, they come from the budget of Saskatchewan about a year ago, which put that province in a very proper order of being generous to low-income citizens, something we all applaud.

1400

But as they apply to Ontario, they did not take into account the private and public payment of the Ontario health insurance plan premiums and a number of other areas which, when properly added up, put Ontario at the level of fourth from the bottom, exceeded in tax effort and tax improvement, you might say, by Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. The rest of the provinces tax higher than we do. Three provinces tax lower and we are, as I say, fourth from the bottom, a position I would like to improve but which is a reasonably good one.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer has said they are inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a new question, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer said they are inaccurate. He does not think OHIP premiums are a tax. On this side, we do. That is the difference between us.

Mr. Breaugh: He used to when he was over here.

Mr. B. Rae: When he was over on this side, he used to say it was.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Does that misrepresentation stand alone or can I respond?

Mr. B. Rae: He can make his statement. I am just responding to what he said. I think it is only fair.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I have no objection.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: How come he makes a little speech after my answer and then I am not permitted to respond to him. After all, he is going to the Minister of Health on another matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question to which minister?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I am sure she receives, as we all do, letters from people around the province about our health care system. Events of the last few weeks have caused us to receive many more. I would like to share with the minister a letter that my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) received just last week, from a patient who was writing to him from the hallway of the emergency department of the Welland County General Hospital.

She was admitted on Monday, April 18, 1988, and she was writing to the member on April 21, 1988. I would simply like to say to the minister that the letter describes, in the most telling and eloquent ways, the conditions in the hospital, the lack of privacy and the fact that it is impossible for patients to get a bed for many days.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister if she is aware that as a result of the announcements coming forth from her ministry, the Welland hospital is now planning to close 30 beds for the summer?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The example the Leader of the Opposition uses, I think, is a very good one to point out how expertise from one hospital can assist others and how information systems available in one can facilitate others.

I would give a quote from a hospital, in fact a very good hospital, the Scarborough General Hospital. Its director of emergency services responded, and it had similar overcrowding problems in its emergency, by pointing out, “This major improvement and almost elimination of the overcrowding problem is the result of physicians and administrative staff at Scarborough General working together to institute new systems, and as well, ensuring these new measures continue to work.”

The ministry is always willing to help hospitals implement new systems and share advice, and I think this kind of co-operation is an example of how people are coming together to help us resolve some of the problems and issues we face.

Mr. B. Rae: I say with great respect to the minister that condescending attitude to hospitals that have a 98 or 99 per cent rate in terms of occupancy, that have patients lined up in the corridors and that are having to cancel surgery because they do not have enough nurses -- she stands up and says, “It’s time to share the expertise” -- that kind of condescending attitude not only offends hospitals, but it offends every patient who is being denied care today because her government is not paying attention to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: And your supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: My supplementary to the minister is this: Is she aware of, and what is she going to do about, the fact that the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa is indicating it may have to close as many as 45 medical and surgical beds, which represents 16 per cent of its hospital beds available right now, and lay off staff?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have been in discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association, hospital boards and administrators, and there is one thing we all agree on: We will work together cooperatively to ensure funding is used appropriately so that hospitals are fairly funded and we can provide essential services to the people of this province in a fiscally responsible manner.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Forget the cue cards and answer the question.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has more cue cards than Ronald Reagan. I would like to ask her in terms of the last letter we now have, the second letter that has gone out --

An hon. member: What about yours?

Mr. B. Rae: This is not a cue card. This is a letter. I am not going to read it.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Read it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: It is signed by the director of the institutional operations branch, dated April 29, 1988, to all hospital administrators. It says, “In addition to efficiency improvements, this containment plan” -- that is the plan which is supposed to contain care given to patients – “will, if necessary, include proposed actions to realign services.” We are demonstrating day after day that the definition of realigning services that the hospitals are having to follow is cutting necessary services--beds, time. It is there.

Can the minister confirm that in fact this is what is going on across the province in response to the announcement the Treasurer made?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to quote Dr. Eugene Vada when he said, “There inevitably are going to be times when the system” -- that is, our health care system – “is being underutilized, and there are going to be times when the system is going to be stressed, but a regionalized system where there can be movement of patients from one facility to another is the only way of dealing with that sort of thing.

“I think the concerns have been somewhat exaggerated. There’s much more concern, I think, than the system merits, particularly when you compare its behaviour to the behaviour of health care systems in other countries.”

Dr. Vada is the dean of community health care at the University of Toronto. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition, in the thesaurus I find no synonym nor antonym for the word “realign” that says “cut.”

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is to the Minister of Health and it relates to the question of the length of time it is now taking for hospitals to provide health services in the case of heart surgery in this province. Is the minister aware that in Ottawa the average waiting time for heart surgery is now 16 weeks? In London it is now 17 weeks and in Metropolitan Toronto it is now 18 and a half weeks. I would say, with respect, that the 18 and a half weeks is up from a 10-week average just three short years ago.

When the minister talks about improving health services in this province, and when this waiting list has gone up almost twice over the course of the past three years, how can she justify that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important to note when we discuss this very important subject that in 1985, with some of the technological advances, the planners were telling us we could expect a decline in the number of procedures performed. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Advances in cardiac surgery have allowed doctors to treat a wider range of people. It is important to note that life-support funding, which supports additional cardiac care over and above global budgets in this province, was doubled from 1985 to the present.

Mr. Eves: I quote to the minister from the report to the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council on the current status of open-heart surgery in Metropolitan Toronto. It is a public document. “The waiting list for adult open-heart procedures has increased to 723 adult patients and 139 pediatric patients (actual data February 1988). The mean waiting period for open-heart surgery is in excess of three months and, for some surgeons, in excess of 28 weeks. In comparison, in December 1985 there were 384 patients waiting for open-heart surgery with a waiting period of a maximum of two months” -- the average 1.5.

1410

The minister has an extra $1.2 billion in her health care budget this year --

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Eves: She has known for three years that the waiting lists were getting longer and longer. She has known for four years that a fourth cardiac unit was needed at Sunnybrook Medical Centre and she has done nothing.

Mr. Speaker: Would you come to your question, please?

Mr. Eves: How does the minister account for the fact that the number of people on the waiting list in 1988 is 250 per cent greater than it was three short years ago and she has done nothing to increase the capacity of the system?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member is wrong. Since 1985, the life support funding for cardiac surgery in this province has doubled. Second, it is important to note that since there is a wider range of people eligible for this type of surgery, we have waiting lists. We recognize that.

The Metro Toronto District Health Council is looking right now at those waiting lists, and as well we are looking at a computerized registry proposal that will make sure patients get to the nearest available bed. Our system is designed to make sure that those in life-threatening situations get priority.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eves: Maybe the system is designed to see that emergency cases get taken care of, but the system is not taking care of them.

Yesterday, the minister said that a greater number of people are now recommended for surgery and that has increased the waiting list. That is exactly the point we are making. More people need heart surgery since 1985, when this government assumed power, yet there has not been an increase in the capacity to perform heart surgery. The volume of heart surgery steadily increased, in this public report, from 1981 to 1985, from 2,400 operations a year to 3,086 in 1985.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Eves: Since 1985, the volume has levelled off at 3,000; in fact, it was slightly less in 1987 than it was in 1985.

Mr. Speaker: Come to the question, please.

Mr. Eves: What has the minister been doing? There are no more surgery procedures taking place in 1988 than there were in 1985, and the minister is misrepresenting the facts if she says that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the final words of the member. It seemed to me that you accused the minister of misrepresenting. Would you please withdraw that?

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the point, what the member said was if the minister answers that way, she is misrepresenting the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate it is very difficult to hear. I believe that is what I heard. Will you withdraw?

Mr. Eves: I will withdraw. What I said, though, and what my House leader said is quite accurate. If --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Order. Would the member take his seat.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The figures that the member opposite is quoting are the figures for Metropolitan Toronto. As part of new and expanded programs across this province, cardiac surgery is now available in Sudbury and we have expanded province-wide our system of cardiac care by some doubling of the resources of life support systems since 1985. Those are the facts. We recognize that there are more people recommended for this surgery. We also recognize that if a patient’s doctor determines that his situation is urgent, that doctor can recommend that the surgery be made available, and it is my understanding that treatment is available for those cases.

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In January, I wrote to the minister about the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, which houses 850 developmentally handicapped residents. I received a response from him in February, but was not satisfied with that. So, on February 15, I wrote to him under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act asking for information with regard to his planned closure or partial closure of that particular institution.

Under the freedom-of-information act, the minister has 30 days to respond to my request. I only heard from his offices some 80 days after I made my original request. Why is he showing total lack of regard for this law? Why is he breaking this law?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If the information is as the member has just described it, I obviously must apologize. I would point out to him, however, that we do not have a planned closure for Rideau. I have indicated that to the member and to several other people in that region.

I was down to Rideau myself a few weeks ago. I met with the staff, with some parents, with some of the residents and with the administration. We clearly discussed the fact that the various institutions around the province have been asked to submit to the ministry their proposals for a long-term plan for anywhere from seven to 15 years. When we get those and analyse them and go back and discuss them with the institutions, eventually such a plan will develop but does not yet exist.

I can only presume that if we were unable to meet the member’s request, it is because what he wants is not there. I do apologize if it took 80 days even to get an answer back to him. That is not acceptable.

Mr. Sterling: Under the act, in spite of whether they can answer, they are required to respond to me within the 30 days. There is a clear breach of this particular act. There does not seem to be any intent of following it.

I will tell the minister why I am so deeply concerned about Rideau Regional Centre and the deinstitutionalization program of his ministry under Challenges and Opportunities. There are three former adolescents who were transferred from Rideau Regional to the R. Tait McKenzie school in Almonte, Ontario. The R. Tait McKenzie high school is a very small institution and desperately needs expansion. The Lanark County Board of Education recently asked the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) for $94,000 for an expansion but was turned down.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Sterling: As a result, these three individuals are now being taught in the kitchen of this high school.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Sterling: Is this what the minister’s Challenges and Opportunities program is all about?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We have clearly indicated, in that document and in other ways, that individuals will not be moved out of an institution into the community until there is a residential placement for them and a day-program placement for them. That means we have to contract with various agency associations to provide that range of services. Our agreement, obviously, with the school board is that they will provide educational services. We do not, however, have any control over the actual placement in which they will be provided.

I certainly admit that a small kitchen is not as preferable as a classroom, but it does not preclude the fact that educational services could be provided there. I would only share with the member that in the very first school of which I was a principal, we had to use every square inch of the school. In fact, we used the kitchen too.

Mr. Sterling: I am afraid our party views these individuals as needing extra-special help. It seems to be that the minister is willing to shift this problem on to other ministries, other governmental institutions, municipal governments, boards of education, as he seems to be in other areas.

In a brochure, Challenges and Opportunities, the minister says, “It is a myth that there are inadequate community services to support these individuals.” I ask the minister: Is it a myth that his ministry has now broken the freedom-of-information law in denying me information about this particular program in this institution? Is it a myth that there is no independent evaluation of this program, according to his senior policy advisers, whom I met with yesterday? Is it a myth that he does not follow these people up during --

Mr. Speaker: That is your third question. Order. Would the member take his seat. Minister.

1420

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the criteria for moving people into a community is that we do have a community agency with which we contract to be responsible for providing a range of services to that young person, so as a matter of fact, no, it is not a myth that we do not have monitoring and follow-up services in the community when people move into that community. We do that very, very clearly.

I have already indicated to the honourable member that if my staff had not responded to him within the allotted period of time, that is not appropriate. I apologize for it and I will doublecheck on the circumstances. I am not aware of them.

I have already spoken to the school situation.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services and relates to the shocking situation in Ontario correctional institutions. Sick human beings, over 6,000 inmates in need of psychiatric treatment, are languishing in our jails and are not getting treatment. The minister is aware that solitary confinement is not an uncommon practice in the handling of mentally disturbed inmates and under ministry regulations can routinely occur without the knowledge of his ministry.

Will the minister acknowledge that within Ontario prisons the condition of sick men and women is simply deteriorating and that, without proper treatment, these individuals will be released back into society with an even greater potential for antisocial behaviour than when they entered prison?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I feel like giving a Jim Bradley response to this. We could go institution by institution and list all the programs that we have at the Ontario Correctional Institute and the Vanier Centre for Women and the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre: anger management programs, substance abuse programs, family violence programs. We have program after program. We are increasing those programs, and I think we are doing a very good job in Ontario in treating our offenders.

Mr. Farnan: If these 6,000 individuals were not in prison, presumably the Ministry of Health would have to assume some responsibility for their treatment and care. While we may applaud psychiatric deinstitutionalization, we have to ask the question: Are many of these former patients simply finding their way into our jails and, beyond the glimpse of public scrutiny, are they simply forgotten souls denied treatment?

Will the minister guarantee proper treatment for all psychiatric inmates requiring it and will the minister accept responsibility for crimes committed by ex-prisoners, if indeed proper and adequate treatment is denied them while under the care of the Ministry of Correctional Services?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: All I can tell the member is that there are many challenges out there. There is a lot that we can do. It is not perfect. We are working very hard towards making treatment available to as many of the people as we can in our system. My goal is to make sure that we do have treatment for everybody who needs it. That is what I am working towards.

ANNIVERSARY OF THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I am sure the minister is aware that this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Thousand Islands Bridge. He may also be aware that a re-enactment, hopefully, will occur with respect to the King-Roosevelt opening. The President and the Prime Minister have been invited, as well as the Premier of this province and the Governor of New York state.

I am wondering, based on the minister’s comments earlier this week when he was vigorously patting himself on the back about all the things his ministry is doing for eastern Ontario, whether he would advise the House just what his participation, Ontario’s participation, will be in this significant event.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I am aware that the member has brought this to the attention of my staff. As the member is also aware, there are certain guidelines that we have concerning the Destinations East program. Of course, the one organization that has applied for funding is the Thousand Island International Council, which is based in New York. That is one of the groups that has asked for funding, although there are Ontario members on it. I can tell the member that I have asked my staff to look into it to see if there is some way we can help in this celebration.

Mr. Runciman: The reality is that three organizations have applied. The Thousand Island International Council is a mixed body of Canadians and Americans. It is not solely an American agency. The fact is that New York state has contributed close to C$200,000 to this event. This minister and his government have not indicated any support at all, not one red cent, yet he stood up in the House earlier this week and said all the wonderful things he and his ministry are doing for eastern Ontario.

Will the minister make a commitment today to participate, and will his ministry participate in this very significant event?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I think the member should be one of the first to recognize the great job we are doing for eastern Ontario, not only in tourism but also in other areas. We have made a great improvement from several years back. I cannot give the member a commitment today. As I say, there are certain guidelines. I have asked the staff to have a look at it. Knowing the member’s concern and how much he would like to see it go ahead, we will certainly look for his co-operation and do whatever we can to assist him.

AQUACULTURE

Mr. Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. We all realize that many farmers, in particular some tobacco farmers, are going through difficult times. One new farm enterprise that is showing promise is aquaculture or fish farming. However, fish farming requires a significant financial commitment. This industry could be greatly enhanced if other species in addition to rainbow trout, brook trout and large- and small-mouthed bass could be cultured commercially in Ontario.

I know the Ministry of Natural Resources has, since 1981, been looking at ways to make fish farming a viable commercial enterprise in Ontario. Can the minister bring the members up to date on MNR’s efforts to promote fish farming as a viable opportunity in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The aquaculture industry in Ontario is the same as it is in many parts of the world. It is an excellent method of growing food. We certainly are keeping abreast of the kinds of initiatives taken in other jurisdictions. We are producing some 2.5 million pounds of rainbow trout today and we have other species that are being raised right now in the form of perch and eel, believe it or not. They are gathering them at the Saunders dam through unique eel ladders.

Mr. Reville: An eel and a beer.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the member very much for the interjection.

The aquaculture industry is a fast-growing industry we are very much aware of and very willing to continue to support. As was the case when I was Minister of Energy, we co-operated with an industry at the Pickering plant where we were able to use the water that was warmed from the reactors to produce the kind of environment that would cause those fish to grow very quickly.

I am very pleased to say that aquaculture is a very viable alternative for farmers who are going out of business. I do not suggest we are ready to admit yet that the grape growers are giving up because of the terrible pressure put on them by the federal government through the free trade arrangement, but we are looking at --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Tatham: As consumer demand for fish and fish products grows, has the minister considered any co-operative efforts with other agencies to encourage fish farming in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. I think a very important initiative has been taken with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) who is now the minister of aquaculture and agriculture.

I must say that some $300,000 has been put into a quarantine centre at the University of Guelph that is going to help us quarantine the kind of stock that is going to be necessary, not only to provide stock for fish farming, but also for fisherman like the leader of the official opposition, in rainbow trout and all those good things. We are involved with much of the industry across the province. As I have said before, it is a growing method of growing food in Ontario. I am very pleased that we are very much involved and will continue to be.

Mr. Jackson: Now there’s a fish story if I ever heard one.

Mr. Villeneuve: Sounds fishy to me.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes.

1430

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Health gave a very evasive answer to the question by my leader about the situation at the Welland County General Hospital, so evasive that she did not even mention the Welland hospital.

By way of a question to the minister, I would like to ask her if she knows that in the month of March, 265 patients waited on emergency stretchers in the emergency department for an average of 20.2 hours; some of them were there for up to four days. In April it was 288 people. Does she know that hospital operated last year at 98.5 per cent of capacity for the whole year? Now they are cutting 30 more beds. Would the minister tell me and tell the people of Welland and the hospital how she is going to solve that problem, or if she is just going to evade it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry is always available to offer advice and assistance to hospitals that are experiencing particular difficulties. I would be pleased, if the member or the hospital board or administration requests, to send in an outside expert to review their operation and determine how we can help them be more efficient and make sure that their patients are receiving the needed services and maintaining essential services in that community.

Mr. Swart: The problem is that ministry has been inviting them for the last three years. Does the minister know also that that Welland hospital has the lowest operating cost per bed of all the 23 hospitals in Ontario, and therefore she provides them with less money? Last year they had a deficit of $1.3 million. They forecast a deficit this year of $2 million.

Given the cutback in 30 beds, which is one fifth of the bed capacity, and the need to cut back in more beds, can the minister not tell this House that she is going to take some action to alleviate this serious crisis existing in the hospital situation in the city of Welland?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to assure the member and the residents of Welland that I will do everything necessary to ensure that essential services are maintained in that community. The review we have conducted of those 22 hospitals that have had repeated deficits should give us the information we need to make sure that hospitals are fairly funded, so that they can provide for the services the ministry has approved in their budgeting, and we can have the kind of planning that will lead to the kind of quality health care and budget predictability that will allow us the most rational use of our resources and make sure that we maintain fiscal responsibility as well as good planning and delivery of services.

AQUACULTURE

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise to correct the record, if I may. In answering a question from the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham), I may have given a wrong number. I want to make sure the record shows that I meant to say about 2.5 million pounds annually in the production of aquaculture here in the province. A colleague pointed out that I may have given the wrong answer and, as fishermen are wont to do, I may have stretched the truth just a little.

FLOODING

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the same minister, who does stretch the truth from time to time, the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister knows that a number of eastern Ontario areas are subject to summer flooding. The South Nation River Conservation Authority covers five eastern Ontario ridings and has that problem, and the minister is aware of it. Will the minister give his assurance today that funding will be available to correct the summer flooding problems in the South Nation River in those problem areas of Plantagenet, Augusta township, South Branch and Bear Brook?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure the member is aware of the fact that we handle the funding of those kinds of initiatives through the conservation authorities and that there is a commitment by the government of Ontario to provide funds, as there are funds provided by the municipalities in the areas that are threatened.

At this point in time, I cannot give that kind of answer to the member, because there is a good process that decides, on the basis of where the threat is most serious, that we would set up a system so we can react to where the need is the greatest; so I cannot give the commitment today. I would be very willing to examine the whole circumstance there and share with the member where that might be.

Mr. Villeneuve: The conservation authority in question met with the minister’s parliamentary assistant here recently. This is a photograph that shows, in mid-July, a farmer standing knee-deep in water in a crop of corn that is ready to tassel. That is a major problem. Would the minister not undertake to work with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of the Environment to correct this very serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course we are very much concerned about that circumstance, but as I said before, and I think it is very important, the conservation authorities across the province provide a very meaningful vehicle on how to deliver the situations where we have to respond. Remember, there is something also quite significant, that is, that this government has continued to go into a flood-plain-mapping circumstance which is going to help design the systems where we will not have those people impacted on if the municipalities in the areas which are party to the flood-plain mapping are willing to accept that there are areas we really have to stay away from. If there can be the kind of dredging and channelling to correct that kind of circumstance, it has to be brought into the perspective of where the priorities are.

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Kanter: I have a question of the Premier. As he is aware, the Metro planning department has prepared a report recommending the extension of the Spadina expressway from Eglinton to Davenport, which would result in the demolition of hundreds of homes and would destroy the quality of life for thousands of residents, not just in my constituency but in many adjacent constituencies in Toronto.

Can the Premier advise us of the position of the provincial government regarding this proposal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen the detailed aspects of the chairman’s plan, but the answer is that it is not the government’s intention to proceed with Spadina. As I said yesterday, the minister will be bringing forward a comprehensive plan for the greater metropolitan area transportation plan in a month or so, and it does not include the extension of Spadina.

Mr. Kanter: I certainly appreciate the Premier’s reply. I am just wondering, in terms of additional assurance for residents of the area, as the provincial government owns most of the land that would have to be used for this expressway, could the Premier assure those residents that no provincially owned land south of Eglinton Avenue will be used for highway purposes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the concern of people in that area. It is an issue which has been mooted for a long time and I appreciate the very thoughtful question. It is the first thoughtful question I have had in this House in a very long period of time, and very elegantly worded, as well. I appreciate that.

The answer is that we do not plan to use the provincial lands for those reasons. I respect the leadership of the honourable member in this regard, speaking forcefully for the people of his constituency, and we will not let them down.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the Rental Housing Protection Act. With only four staff people to enforce this act, it is not surprising that there have not been any convictions.

Was the minister aware, when she said that those apartments which have been converted into apartment hotels for the purpose of avoiding rent review cannot do that, that the regulations which she published really do reveal that conversions which were done six months prior to the issuance of the regulations cannot be investigated, so that anything which happened in a six-month period can be covered, but anything that happened prior to that is not covered by these new regulations? Was the minister aware of that loophole when she made that statement?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The suite hotel regulations which we proposed make it possible for people who have felt that their building has been converted inappropriately to suite hotels to complain to the ministry and to get support and protection.

Mr. Breaugh: I take it the answer is that she was not. Was the minister aware when she made the announcements of these new regulations that the regulations in effect mean that illegal rents charged for illegal apartment hotel suites will stay in the landlord’s pocket, as long as they were collected prior to April 1987, and that the Premier has voiced his opinion on the matter, that a successful prosecution under the Rental Housing Protection Act for the conversion of rental units to suite hotel units, would not restore the units to their rental status since the act does not give a court such authority? Is the minister aware of that?

1440

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The way that the amendment was supposed to deal with that second question that the honourable member raised is that because the rents would have to be set under rent review, any inclination or incentive to have and operate a suite hotel would be removed because the rents for that unit would have to be under rent review, therefore controlled and therefore no longer attractive to be rented as a suite hotel.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the latter part of February, I called the minister and voiced my concerns about a study that committed 11 extended care beds for the North Hastings District Hospital in Bancroft. I also voiced my concerns about whether she would provide funding for an addition to that hospital, with those beds, or whether she would commit funding for a new hospital in Bancroft.

Would the minister inform the House what her decision is?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am not prepared at this time to respond with detail to the honourable member’s question. I will be pleased to look into it and discuss it with him.

Mr. Pollock: How soon can I expect an answer from the minister? After all, that hospital is run by the board of governors in Belleville and they are concerned about these 11 extended care beds which were supposed to go there and as of yet have never been committed. They would like an answer and so would I.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Since 1985, I believe we have announced almost 3,000 chronic care beds in this province. I can look to determine whether or not the institution that the honourable member mentioned was part of that allocation. If it was, I can tell him that we are in the process of planning for those beds and that it is expected they will be coming on stream in due course.

TREE PLANTING

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources on the ministry’s policy of contracting out wherever possible. This is happening across the north, but I will use the Blind River district as an example.

Before 1985, there was no contracting out for tree planting; there were 40 tree planters on staff. Now in 1988, 100 per cent of that work is contracted out by the ministry; there are no local tree planters working.

What would the minister want me to say to my constituent, Ron Nyman, who has worked as a tree planter for the ministry for 18 years and now has no job because of his policy? What does the minister have to say to the community of Blind River that is going to lose a total payroll of about $375,000 this year because he is contracting out work that belongs to the local people in Blind River?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do believe that my first obligation is to make certain that we have sustained yield in the forests of this province; and for a good long time that could not be said. I am saying now that we brought in a new initiative when we brought in Dr. Baskerville. We are doing the kind of things to take the initiative on making certain that we have the kind of resource in northern Ontario that is going to keep the jobs there, that is going to keep the mills going and that is going to provide the parks and those other things for the people of northern Ontario. That is my first responsibility.

If we have changed somewhat where it has impacted on people, at the same time we have interceded on the part of some of the planters with the people who have the contracts to hire local people to the degree that it can be done. I am very anxious to do that. If the honourable member brings those kinds of things to my attention, I am very much willing to see what I can do to have that particular initiative taken where the tree planting is going on.

But, in Ontario last year, we planted 163 million trees. We planted twice the number that we harvested. I have to tell the honourable member that the forests in northern Ontario are in good shape and we are providing the kind of initiative that is going to put the resource here.

When the honourable member has the kind of question that he posed today, I am very willing to see what I can do to make certain the workers in that area get the jobs.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister, if he is interested in sustained yield, would be interested in having experienced people do the work rather than students who have never done the job before. If the minister is really as concerned as he says he is, can he explain why at the Kirkwood Tree Nursery in Thessalon there has been no spring sowing this year and the workers have been told there would only be three or four weeks’ work for eight people this year because the sowing has been contracted out to private nurseries? What does he say to the people of Thessalon -- that community that is going to lose an annual payroll of about $145,000 this year because of that contracting out?

Is he not also worried that the nursery stock that he is going to get from the private operators will not have the same success and quality that they have had for years at the Kirkwood Tree Nursery?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have made it very clear to the people in my ministry who are in charge of the nurseries across this province that even though there are contracted-out nurseries that were here before I came along, we will maintain a nursery in every section of the province so that we will know if the people who are producing in a private way are doing it successfully, and if they have losses, we will know whether it is because they were not tended properly.

The one thing I can assure the member -- I think it is very important -- is that even though we have our young people out there planting trees, they are being supervised, and we now have a process that says we not only plant the tree but, more important, we see to it that it is free to grow. It is tended, and things are done that were never done before to make certain that tree reaches maturity before we count it in our inventory. Those things are happening and those young people are doing it very --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members are not interested.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma has had a question; he has had a supplementary. Now we will have a question from the member for Durham East.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr. Cureatz: I appreciate this opportunity to ask my first question of the Minister of Energy. I notice that the Minister of Energy had the opportunity of visiting the riding of Durham East and the Darlington generating station. I find it passing strange that he forgot to invite me to the tour. I am sure the invitation is still in the mail.

I want to ask the minister, when he visited the generating station, did he also have the opportunity of visiting with the region of Durham council and the town of Newcastle council, and did he assure the council that Ontario Hydro will make available the community fund to those two municipalities so that they can fight Metropolitan Toronto’s hope of grabbing land in the town of Newcastle for their landfill site?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I have a two-part answer. First, I agree 100 percent with the first part of the honourable member’s question and invite him 1,000 per cent the next time I go to visit the plant in his vicinity.

With respect to the second answer, no, I did not meet with the Durham council.

Mr. Cureatz: With respect to the generating station, did the minister have the opportunity of being convinced by Ontario Hydro that the select committee on energy will no doubt bring down a report, under the demand-supply options study, that the residents of Ontario will be needing more electricity by the year 2000, and therefore, he will be in a position to recommend to cabinet the construction of Darlington 2?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I have a great deal of respect for the 11-member all-party committee, the select committee on energy, and look forward to whatever its conclusions are.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. Black: This morning during private member’s session, a resolution proposed by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was approved by the House.

That resolution dealt with a review of educational programs for the profoundly deaf within this province. There were many of us who supported that resolution in principle but are concerned that it was too narrow.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Would he, at this point, make a commitment to undertake or to have his ministry undertake a wide-ranging review of programs for the profoundly deaf and the hearing-impaired and to report back to this House on the outcome of that review?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for most of the debate that took place this morning, although I will say that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill), very effectively put forward some of the concerns that our ministry had relative to the scope and the nature of the proposed review.

I will say, however, that I compliment the member for Scarborough West in bringing forward his resolution. I support the principle behind his resolution. We will be looking into the matter very carefully and, hopefully, coming forward with a response in the very near future.

1450

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will be aware that the deadline for submissions for school board budgets to his ministry was April 30. The minister will be further aware that it is illegal for boards of education in the province to submit budgets that have a built-in deficit, and he will know that the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board submitted a budget to him with a $3-million deficit because of his government’s failure to address the Macdonald commission report and come up with an adequate and fair response to the sharing of commercial and industrial assessment. How does the minister intend to deal with school boards that have submitted budgets with deficits?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member indicates, the deadline for the submission of school board budgets was April 30 of this year. As I am sure the member is well aware, section 127 of the Education Act does not permit a school board to submit an unbalanced or a deficit budget. We will be reviewing those budgets as they come in and we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that boards do not enter into deficit financing arrangements.

I would also like to add that I do not accept the member’s premise that the reason for boards to submit unbalanced budgets is a result of any failure or lack of commitment on the part of this government to transfer funds to those boards. As the member knows full well, there was a 7.2 per cent increase in the general legislative grants that were made available this year.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister knows that the Catholic school boards in this province cannot possibly compete with public school boards and offer fair and equal programs until he comes up with a solution to the sharing of the industrial and commercial assessment in the province. All day we have been getting answers that just repeat the questions we have asked. I know the deadline was April 30 and I know it is illegal. My question is, what is the minister going to do?

He has known they were going to do this for quite some time. They passed their budget and set their mill rate. Is he going to be rejecting the budgets and putting the school boards in real jeopardy or is he going to come up with a solution and implement some recommendations in his response to the Macdonald commission?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In responding to the member’s preamble, I would like to reiterate that the member should know full well that the province utilized an equalized mill rate in terms of establishing the rate of grant for different boards so that it reflects the relative wealth of different board jurisdictions.

I want to indicate to the member that clearly, deficit financing for school boards is not permitted under the act. There are a number of measures that are available to the ministry in dealing with that, and frankly if we have to utilize those measures, we will.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education had very high on its list of priorities a new public school in the Kemptville area and major renovations to the high school in Kemptville. They received nothing. What do I tell these people and the board of education?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think I have responded on many occasions over the course of the past few weeks on the methods that were used in determining the allocations of this year’s capital program. The projects that were selected this year were selected solely on the basis of need. As members know, this budget made a provision for some $900 million over the course of the next three years for the provision of funds for school capital.

Unfortunately, that amount of money does not match all the requests that are outstanding from boards of education throughout this province, but I think that over the course of the next three years we can go a long way to meeting the needs of school boards and students throughout this province.

Mr. Villeneuve: I find the Attorney General’s comment regarding “resign” just very typical of the arrogance this government has towards eastern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Villeneuve: Can I in all honesty go to these people and say the Minister of Education will seriously consider their request next year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think the member can in all honesty return to his riding and indicate to the people of eastern Ontario that funding for capital projects under the administration of the eastern Ontario regional office of the Ministry of Education, funding in that particular region, has been increased this year by 125 per cent over last year. I think he may also want to convey to those people that the amount of funds for new capital this year is some four times what it was during the last year of the previous government.

He may want to indicate to his constituents that we are trying, with some difficulty, to meet the accumulated needs that have come about as a result of the decades of neglect of the previous administration. He can also indicate to the good people in his riding that this is, indeed, a three-year program. We regret that more funds were not made available for renovation and renewal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member has been given a fairly full answer.

The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: When we get down to a minute or half a minute at the end of question period and you allow the minister and the government to make enough noise, and when you stand on your feet and ask them to take their place so we can get our last question in and they ignore you for 30 seconds, it is not reasonable to penalize those who want to ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I certainly would not want to deny the House another question.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In order of rotation, I would be the next questioner, but because you were still on your feet, I did not get up.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think the honourable member is probably incorrect. You were not the next. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) offered the last question.

Mr. Harris: Still on the point, Mr. Speaker: I thought you were recognizing that in fact there should have been one more question. Surely you saw me, and I saw you look at me, on my feet with four seconds left on the clock, and I think we should --

Mr. Speaker: We certainly could have had another question in the last short while. Really, I could go over the lengths of time it has taken for some questions and some responses. I do appreciate that I was on my feet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I stated that time for oral questions had expired.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition from 120 residents of the Madoc area which reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows, our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

I also have another petition from 21 members of the Thomasburg United Church, which reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows, our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

1500

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Two days ago I presented in this House a piece of legislation that would put an end to the labour dispute that is affecting thousands of disabled people in Metro and in the region of Peel. At the time I presented that piece of legislation for first reading, because of the tremendous urgency of these people being captive in their own homes, on Tuesday I requested all-party unanimous consent that the standing orders be set aside and that we proceed immediately to second reading.

Mr. Speaker: Under what standing order?

Mrs. Marland: I think it is 34(c). I did look it up a few moments ago.

My purpose in standing today is that at that time, the government House leader said he could not agree to unanimous consent of this House because he had not seen the piece of legislation that all-party consent was being requested on. Now that the government House leader has seen that bill, I am today asking for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the honourable member stated she was referring to 34(c), which says, “On the introduction of a government bill,” etc.

Mrs. Marland: Well, I am sorry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully, and it seems that probably would have been a good question during question period.

Mrs. Marland: No, it is a point of order; I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: The member is asking, for the second time, permission for second reading of her bill.

Mr. Harris: She is asking for unanimous consent, which you can do at any time.

Mr. Speaker: No; sorry. I asked the honourable member, on what standing order?

Mr. Harris: She made a mistake. Now she has asked for unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Petitions.

Mrs. Marland: May I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Another point of order?

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, and I refer to standing order 84, on page 25, which says that I may request unanimous consent of this House to set aside standing orders as they relate to private bills. My request is to set aside standing orders and have unanimous consent to deal with this very critical, important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: It is so obvious. The member is referring to a reference to private bills in the standing orders. Her bill is a private member’s bill. It has nothing to do with this particular standing order.

Mr. Breaugh: Perhaps I can help. I believe the member is seeking unanimous consent to have second reading of her bill. I think it would be simpler to put the question instead of squabbling over the rules. Could we do that?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member is asking for unanimous consent for the second time for second reading of her bill. Is there unanimous agreement?

Negatived.

Mr. Breaugh: See? Much quicker.

Mr. Speaker: There.

Petitions, the member for Willowdale.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Mr. Matrundola: I have a petition signed by a number of my constituents, and I have also fixed my signature to it.

The petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“Whereas we are concerned about the possible destruction of our environment due to the deterioration of the earth’s ozone layer, as reported by Friends of the Earth, 53-53 Queen Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5C5;

“We urge the Ontario government to give serious attention to the goals of the ozone protection campaign to be undertaken by Friends of the Earth.

“We are also concerned about the destructive effects of acid rain and the problem of garbage disposal and, concerning the latter, would welcome recycling procedures.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: Under this sign -- “Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far” -- which was shown, the following petition was circulated:

“We, the undersigned taxpayers of the province of Ontario, do hereby demand, in the light of a very strong provincial economy, that the provincial government of Ontario rescind certain tax increases as proposed in their 1988 budget, namely:

“The one per cent increase in the provincial sales tax (from seven per cent to eight per cent).

“The one per cent increase in personal income tax for both 1988 and 1989.

“The gasoline tax increase (a) four cents per litre for leaded gasoline; (b) one cent per litre for unleaded gasoline.”

This petition is signed by 2,000 petitioners.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says, in part:

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s plan to change retail store hours will transform Sunday into just another day for doing business, we request that consideration be given to the views of 159 persons from Mississauga and some other parts of Ontario who have signed” this petition.

The petition also says: “We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We don’t need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

I lend my signature to that petition.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet in the morning of and following routine proceedings on each Wednesday during the month of June 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ZOO LICENSING ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 129, An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: This has nothing to do with the televised version of the legislative proceedings. Instead, it requires persons to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals for the purpose of exhibition to or entertainment of the public. The bill does not apply to circuses or shops.

Applicants for a licence are required to submit a detailed plan demonstrating how they propose to care for the animals and ensuring that they have adequate financing to properly care for the animals. The bill also sets standards and allows the ministry the right to remove the licence for reasons.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before the orders of the day, and for the particular benefit of my friend the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), I would like to table a number of answers to questions previously placed in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Monday, May 9].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Neumann: I take pleasure today in participating in this debate on the government’s budgetary policies, as enunciated by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on April 20.

The budget enunciated by the Treasurer indicates a clear policy on the part of the Liberal government to fulfil commitments made by the Peterson government. It provides for necessary investments for the future, maintaining the high quality of services expected by the citizens of Ontario. It assures Ontario’s ability to compete in the global economy, and it provides for all of these actions in a fiscally responsible manner.

1510

I would like to go into some detail with respect to each of these four points.

First, with regard to commitments, services and investments in the future, the budget enunciated will increase revenues for Ontario to meet important needs which the people of Ontario have clearly stated to the representatives of this Legislature.

With respect to transportation, as a former mayor of the city of Brantford, I know that our transportation and urban infrastructure is in need of continual updating. It is in need of the building of new roads to invest in the future. This budget provides an additional $100 million towards transportation infrastructure.

We view the road and transit systems of this province as a way of moving people and goods, but we sometimes forget that roads and transportation arteries are an important element in the economic development of our province.

I can point to a local example. For years, the people in our area have lobbied for the completion of Highway 403. Some would view it as a local request, but Highway 403 is an important transportation artery, part of the important four-lane highway system connecting major important areas in this province.

Highway 403 links from Highway 401 at Woodstock through Brantford, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga and up to Highway 401 near the airport. That is where it should link; but there are missing links. The previous government sought to find missing links, something like the people who are interested in evolution seeking the missing link. I think the previous government had trouble finding the missing links in Highway 403. They are very evident.

At the present time, construction is being completed on the final section to link Highway 403 to Highway 401 at Woodstock. We have a commitment that construction will begin next year on the section between Brantford and Ancaster, which would then link to Highway 403 at Burlington. There are also plans to fulfil the missing link between Burlington and Oakville.

This highway will be part of the four-lane system that will link the important border crossing points at Windsor and Sarnia to border crossing points at Niagara Falls and Buffalo. It will link east-west to the important tourism destinations of Niagara Falls and Metropolitan Toronto.

It is not just important for our community, the city of Brantford; it is important for all of southwestern Ontario that this highway system be completed. It is an important investment in the economic development potential of southwestern Ontario. I am pleased that an additional $100 million has been added to the budget to move this project forward.

Second, with respect to education, this government has, in the space of four budgets, quadrupled the number of dollars going towards capital projects in education. It reverses the trend of underfunding which was characteristic of the previous government.

It is true that during the past four years, with the growth in the economy, there have been additional pressures for services. Indeed, the buoyant Ontario economy has attracted an in-migration to the province of some 2,000 people a week. Over the course of a year, that is over 100,000 people being attracted to this province. All of those people demand and require the services that people in our province are used to and this has put an additional demand on facilities in schools and a various range of services.

I am pleased that over a three-year period, $900 million has been allocated for capital construction in education. In our community, three important schools, Brier Park, St. Leo and St. John’s College, are going to get their additions and expansions., eliminating a number of portables that are currently on these three locations.

This fulfils a commitment made by the government last year, by the previous Minister of Education, that St. John’s College, at least, was high on the priority list for our region. I am very pleased that within days of the budget being announced, the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) was able to concretely announce the expansion of St. John’s College and, in addition to that, announce funding for St. Leo and Brier Park as well.

In addition, funding for education will help to improve the quality of education across the province. With respect to colleges and universities, we have a $440-million capital fund, we have an $88-million university accessibility fund and $65 million for student housing.

In our community, we have young people graduating from high schools and going on to colleges and universities in all parts of the province. I am very pleased that this government has made a commitment over the last three years to improve funding for post-secondary education. It is not only important for the young people attending these facilities, it is also an important investment in the future of this province.

In research and development areas and in the skills and training that our young people will receive -- I really should not say young people only, because more and more adults are going back to college and university for upgrading and retraining and taking courses, and indeed senior citizens are starting to enter colleges and universities in increasing numbers; so it is not just young people. A whole range of our population from many different backgrounds is taking advantage of the opportunities at colleges and universities.

We have a particular need in Brantford and Brant county in that we do not have a college or university of our own. We are in the area of responsibility of Mohawk College, which is centred in Hamilton. For years our area was underserved, and it still is. Although progress has been made in bringing full-time college programming to our community with satellite campuses of Mohawk College, it is nowhere near the level that is needed, so I know firsthand the tremendous needs that exist across this province.

To fulfil those needs you need dollars, and this budget provides the dollars necessary to fulfil the needs of colleges and universities, not completely -- and they never will be completely fulfilled; there are always demands beyond what is able to be done -- but I believe the investment which this government has indicated in colleges and universities will be a big step forward and will enhance the possibility of our getting the funding in our area for an expanded Mohawk College in Brant county. Certainly the message has been made very clear by the people of the area, in petitions, in letters and in delegations to the minister and to the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

With respect to housing, a lot of attention is focused on the greater Metropolitan Toronto region. Certainly housing conditions are exhibiting severe strain in this area, with very low vacancy rates. The government in this budget provides for the construction of 30,000 rental units, provides the Ontario home ownership savings plan for first time home buyers and will assist in the development of affordable housing in a major way.

The city of Brantford also faces an extremely low vacancy rate, and we at the local level are pulling all elements of the community together to make sure that co-op housing projects and affordable housing projects are put forward for funding. The problem in our area has been that for some time community groups have not known how to provide the applications and have not indicated a willingness to come forward. At the local level, with the leadership of the city council, there is now a housing task force working at encouraging applications to take advantage of the funding available. A number of affordable housing projects are now being applied for, and a number are under construction. Hopefully, with the funding provided in this budget, we can go a long way towards tackling the needs of housing in our community.

1520

With respect to health care, it is one of the largest areas of demand in our province. We have an excellent health care system in Ontario, but it requires major dollars to keep it going and to provide the technology necessary for modern health care. Thirty-nine per cent of the new funding in this budget goes towards health care. I am really pleased that this government, of which I am a part, is working away at meeting the needs of the province in the area of health care.

We have two fine hospitals in our community, three in Brant county in total, and they have tremendous needs. One of the problems we face is a shortage of acute care beds, because they are taken up by chronic care patients to some degree, and we have the local health council and various agencies working on this particular problem. It is important that we have adequate funding to take care of the health care needs of our province.

With respect to programs for child care, I am very pleased that there is a $280-million program to implement the new directions for child care -- a 68 per cent increase in the budget.

We have a working-class community with many two-income families and a lot of single-parent families in need of day care facilities. We are hoping that with the funding in this budget, we can increase the number of child care spaces in our community. There are a lot of local groups working at developing programs and facilities to meet the needs.

With respect to the environment, there is another major commitment, of $426 million, which represents an increase of 51 per cent since 1984-1985. Here, I think, is a good example of what we mean when we say this is investment in the future. We all know that if we do not respect the environment, our children and their children will be the ones who will suffer. The environment around us is important to our survival, and in producing the goods and services that we demand in a modern society, we must be aware of the implications for the environment and the external costs, beyond the production process, that impact upon the environment.

We have a dedicated Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who has moved a long way towards tackling the issues that are really crucial to a clean environment in Ontario. This budget will continue that trend and that thrust.

Many other areas could be touched on. I would like, however, to switch to another point, and that is Ontario’s ability to compete in the global economy.

We know that Ontario is the manufacturing centre of Canada. We have many fine industries that produce for the Ontario market, the Canadian market, the North American market and indeed export to many parts of the world.

The buoyant economy has reflected growth in manufacturing and various areas of production over the last several years. It is important, however, that we remain in the forefront of this growth, that we maintain our industries in a very competitive fashion, that they gear up for the future and that we have the technologies that can increase productivity and get into new product lines and areas of service to meet the needs of our people and the export opportunities around the world.

I am very pleased, therefore, that in this budget we have a number of initiatives that will contribute to that.

The research and development super allowance, which provides an extra 25 per cent deduction for large firms and an extra 35 per cent deduction for small firms, is expected to require a $45-million expenditure in this area. This will encourage Ontario firms already involved in research and development in a big way and encourage greater involvement in research and development.

We have suffered in the past because Ontario’s industries to some degree were branch-plant industries and did not get involved in research and development, but we have many new Canadian-based firms which have started up over the last several years which are interested in developing new product lines, and this initiative will encourage them to move forward.

We have in this budget a manufacturing investment incentive, a deduction of 15 per cent of the cost of new manufacturing equipment and machinery. Over a two-year period it is expected that $150 million will be spent at maturity for this program. This should continue the direction which the Ontario economy has experienced in continued growth and investment in new areas. It will encourage manufacturers in Ontario to look for new product lines, to bring in new machinery, to try out new areas of investment.

With respect to efforts to help small firms, we have a $38-million program to assist in hiring under the technology personnel program. Small firms will be able to get involved in research and development through the hiring of personnel they are not able to hire at the present time. As well, an additional $4 million has been allocated to skills development for new technicians and technologists in a skills updating program.

All of these efforts are important incentives for Ontario industry to proceed and move forward. I speak with some knowledge of this area, representing the community of Brantford, where we have gone through and are still going through a major adjustment.

Our community, the city of Brantford, is a manufacturing centre. Indeed, towards the end of the 19th century and at the turn of the century, we were one of the four leading manufacturing centres in all of Canada. At that time, the leading edge of growth in our community was farm equipment manufacturing. With the mechanization of agriculture making possible the providing of food for our entire population, with a very small percentage of the population involved in farming, mechanization of agriculture was the leading technological change of the 19th century, and provides the food for all of us today to live in the cities and be able to eat well.

With the opening up of lands in the west, an increased demand for agricultural equipment occurred, so at the turn of the century, our community was a very rapidly growing community and the economic health of the community depended on farm equipment manufacturing. However, as members know today, during the last decade this industry has suffered severely with the decline in world commodity prices and the demise of White Farm Equipment and Massey-Ferguson in our community. We have lost over 5,000 jobs in the highest-paid manufacturing industries in our town.

It has been necessary to make the adjustment to diversification to encourage new industries to settle in the community and to provide replacement jobs for those lost. This is not an easy task at all, but I am pleased to report that quite a few new industries have moved into the community and I am very pleased that the thrust in this budget will encourage expansion in manufacturing.

I recently had the opportunity of bringing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) into Brantford for a meeting with civic officials. We reviewed the various projects under way and the various applications from industries that are looking to locate in our community, and also reviewed with him the current efforts of the receiver to market the Massey-Ferguson lands so that they can once again be used as fine production facilities for some other area of manufacturing.

We hope that with the initiatives in this budget and with the important commitment of the several cabinet ministers involved, our community will make the transition and that the shock we have gone through over the last several years with the loss of 5,000 jobs will not lead to the demise of the community but will lead ultimately to its strengthening; recognizing, of course, that there are individuals and families going through severe dislocation and here we need the retraining, we need the labour adjustment programs and we need the assistance to those individuals.

1530

We can turn things around, and I know that the Ontario Development Corp., as part of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, has played an important role in assisting our community.

In conclusion, I would like to deal with the fourth point, and that is that this budget not only maintains the commitments of the Peterson government, it maintains the level of servicing that Ontarians have come to expect. It looks to the future in terms of our competitiveness in the global economy, it invests in the future for our young people and it does all this in a fiscally responsible manner.

This budget continues the trend started by the current Treasurer for deficit reduction. It does so in an organized, deliberate manner over a period of years. We have a buoyant economy and we should by no means be looking at an increase in our deficit at this time. At the same time, we have other deficits in the community. We have deficits in facilities and we have deficits in programs. We have heard from people all over this province, in many groups, of the needs in housing, in health care, in education and roads.

We have to meet those deficits and therefore it requires an increase in expenditure. We should not look on this negatively; we should look on it positively -- part of the demand for services today, as I mentioned, comes from an in-migration of people being attracted to Ontario because of the buoyancy -- unlike the other two parties in this Legislature, one of which would increase the deficit to accomplish the needs and I do not know where the other stands.

I hear some of its members saying that we should be spending more money. Every day they stand up in the House and they ask this minister or that: “Why aren’t you spending more money on housing? Why aren’t you spending more money on education?”

At the same time, they call for us to reduce the taxes and eliminate the deficit. We are not magicians. We are realistic managers of the Ontario economy and we recognize that to meet the needs of this province, we have to pay the bills. The people of Ontario understand that. The people in my community understand it, that there are real needs out there, and I heard about them when I campaigned for office last summer. I heard about those needs.

It is going to make it a lot easier for me, as the representative for Brantford, to meet those needs if I can go to a cabinet minister who has some money in the budget to meet the needs. That is the explanation I am giving in my community and the people of my community understand that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Neumann: I am drawing to a close.

[Applause]

Mr. Neumann: I knew I would find a way to get the opposition to applaud my comments.

This budget meets the needs in a fiscally responsible manner. It maintains a sensitivity to the needs of low-income people by taking additional numbers off the Ontario health insurance plan rolls; it enhances the property and sales tax credits being paid to low-income Ontarians; it provides additional shelter subsidies to people in need, and it places a 10 per cent surtax on incomes over $85,000. So I believe this budget moves further along towards a progressive approach to taxation.

I recognize that we have a way to go and that perhaps in the future we can consider other initiatives. But at this time, this budget is realistic. It meets the needs of the people. It does not go all the way. It provides the revenues necessary to tackle immediate needs and to invest in the infrastructure that we need to continue a healthy economy in Ontario.

In conclusion, I would like to quote from the Financial Times of Canada, April 25 of this year. It says here that this is a courageous budget: “Whatever else may be said of him, Nixon can’t be accused of lacking courage. In these uncertain times, raising taxes to pay for increases in government spending was bound to draw fire. The most politically attractive of the choices facing Nixon would have been to restrain spending, hold the line on the deficit and leave taxes alone. The public is inclined to believe that governments are instinctively wasteful and that cuts in spending are by definition desirable. But Nixon may be correct in his belief that to pursue such a course today, when the province is on a roll, would undermine its economic future. ‘Our obligation,’ he says, ‘is to invest in those areas that will keep Ontario competitive.’”

That concludes my speech on the note that I started off with. This is a far-sighted budget. It meets the needs of today and invests in Ontario’s future. I fully support it.

Mr. Harris: The member talked about opposition parties being critical of how money is being spent, and I wonder if he could comment on a few examples. Does he think it is reasonable that since this Treasurer took office, OHIP billings by doctors have gone from about $2.4 billion to something over $4 billion, an increase of about $1.7 billion or 70 per cent?

At the same time, we do not have enough nurses. At the same time, hospitals do not have enough money. At the same time, they cannot afford to implement at any time over the next six years -- and they have been in there three, so that is nine years -- the plans the former government had for redevelopment of psychiatric care in northeastern Ontario. I wonder if the member thinks that $1.7 billion -- minus the $50 million they saved from the federal government, so $1.65 billion -- is an appropriate way to spend the increase in the health care dollars.

I wonder if he thinks it is appropriate that at community colleges there is no money to adequately fund skills development. They have had to cancel programs at Canadore College in midstream. They take one year and then they say to them: “Sorry, kid. You can go home now. We are not going to complete the second year.” But there is enough money for Humber College to build a marina and restaurant on Toronto waterfront lands, where we are supposedly going to have low-cost housing.

I wonder if the member thinks that it is appropriate that there is no money for schools, no money for the regular day care program, not enough money to do away with portables and, at the same time, there are hundreds of millions of dollars for public school boards to compete with separate school boards, community colleges, Young Men’s Christian Associations and parks and recreation departments to run noncredit courses like basketball camp, summer camp, volleyball camp -- all free, transportation all free. I wonder if he thinks those are appropriate ways to spend money.

Mr. Mahoney: One of the nice things and, I think, one of the advantages -- and I am sure the Treasurer would agree -- of having some Liberal members on that side of the House is that the odd time we hear some common sense coming from that side of the Legislature. I would like to congratulate the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) and tell members that I know what a thoughtful person he is from his days as mayor of Brantford and serving on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, where I had the privilege of serving with him.

It is nice to hear some positive comments in this Legislature about our budget from someone who has analysed the many benefits that are going to our different communities. He talked about the benefits to education. Our friends in the third party seem to go on and on as if there is nothing there or as if all we are doing is creating conflicts and problems, when the reality is that we have given more money in the region of Peel alone than the Conservatives gave to the entire province in their last time on this side of the House. So the third party should not tell us that we are not putting money where it is most needed.

I think the member for Brantford has clearly outlined the commitment of this government in health care, in child care, in the environment, in education, and he made a comment about housing. I was particularly interested in his comment in relationship to what is happening at the local level and I wonder if he might, when he has an opportunity to respond, from his local experience, tell us a little bit more about what is happening in Brantford. I can tell members, in my community in the region of Peel, we do something about housing, unlike some members opposite, most notably the critic for Housing, who does not even have a nonprofit housing corporation in his community and yet constantly stands up and criticizes this government for not delivering.

We deliver in our community, and I know they deliver in Brantford, and I would like to hear the honourable member’s comments.

1540

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to make just one comment pertaining to the comments of the member for Brantford pertaining to roads, highways and transit. I certainly can understand why he is enthusiastic about the budget providing money to fill the links, as he calls it, in his highway system. I am not opposed to that. They should be filled in but, in all fairness, does he not think there should be some money allocated to the other parts of the province?

The member made a statement that touched a raw nerve when he said how great this budget is for western Ontario. I happen to represent a riding from western Ontario and I have not had too many people tell me how great it is. The Treasurer will know that the people there are a little more understanding about the expenditures of this government and its lack of control.

If the government does want to spend money on highways, does it not feel that some money should go to western Ontario, Highways 6 and 10, that serve up into the real part of the world, where the rural people live and where we have a lot of tourists in the summer and where we wish to attract tourism? There are very few dollars spent there. We cannot even get resurfacing, let alone capital expenditures. One mile of the superhighways in Hogtown, in this area the member speaks of, would build most of the highways we need in my part of the province for a good number of years. I think the government should give consideration to that.

Another aspect of the same ministry is the GO Transit and its extension: another $33 million spent to extend the transit system. I support that, but surely we need bus lines in Wellington and further north.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am amazed that the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) would come forward with such an uncharacteristic doctor-bashing speech, and it is difficult for me to understand what he has against sending kids to camp in the summertime. I do not know what is happening to the Tory party but I would hate to think he was agreeing with the member for Brantford, who took a positive view of the budget.

The member for Brantford has an extensive and varied political background. On that basis, I feel that his judgement is extremely healthy, because there is a depth and a fabric there that not every member of the Legislature shares. The thing that impresses me most about the honourable member is that when he became mayor of that great city, it was just about at the time of the economic downturn in Canada and, as a matter of fact, in the whole of the western world.

He indicated in his speech that there were 5,000 of the best-paying jobs in Canada lost during that period of time, and the leadership that he and his council -- but particularly he as mayor of Brantford -- were able to show during those years really was exemplary. It was an extremely difficult situation with relatively slow recovery and the government of Ontario, which was Conservative in those days, and the government of Canada, which was Liberal, both fitted into the Brantford situation because the leadership that was there made it easy for those programs to come to the assistance of the unemployed people and the problems the community was facing.

Now, if you were to visit Brantford, you would see a rebuilt and reinvigorated downtown, commitments to new and improved schools, that new highways are being built and that the whole of the economy of the Brantford and Brant county area has been reinvigorated. We owe the former mayor, the present member for Brantford, a debt in this regard. His leadership was exemplary.

Mr. Neumann: The member for Nipissing certainly illustrated the example I was giving before, whereby members of the Conservative Party are continually calling upon the government for increased spending and then saying: “Reduce the deficit. Cut down on taxes.” Certainly, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency not only between members of that caucus but also from that particular member himself.

With respect to the comments of the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), I simply point out that co-op housing is really going strong. A few years ago we did not have any co-op housing in Brantford; now we have a lot of applications under way and pending. Also, I would commend the Brantford Jaycees for their nonprofit housing project. They have brought 90 units on stream and they are doing an excellent job in the city of Brantford. As well, there is a lot of co-ordination taking place out of city hall to encourage new applications from community groups and to assist them to get through the process.

In commenting on the comment of the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) about highways, I encourage him to put forward his case for highways in his area. I am sure that he has a much better chance of being heard and having success than he did under the previous Conservative governments when the trend was to reduce the expenditure on highways over the years. Now we are gradually making up for that deficit.

Mr. Breaugh: I participate with a little bit of regret in this budget debate. Those members who know me know that I am somewhat of a fan of this place and the process and the procedure. This budget did not exactly get off in the way that budgets normally do here where there normally is a clear beginning to the process. We set aside some time and the Treasurer makes his grand speech and we respond to that and receptions are held and things of that nature go on.

But I must say if there ever was a budget that really should have been slipped under the door in the middle of the night, this one is it. If there ever was an act of mercy created by this Legislature, it was in preventing the Treasurer from having to read this budget. I say that with not very much meanness in my voice because I respect the Treasurer and have for a long time. Members who have been around here for a while know that he and I share some views in common, and one of the things we do share is a respect for this place and the process that goes on here.

I think that in part those of us who have been with him in this chamber in opposition and while he has been the Treasurer have learned to respect his views about a number of things, mainly those about fairness. He consistently argued over the years that the tax laws in Ontario were often very unfair and that they often had a negative impact on those who were virtually defenceless to fight back against them. I have often heard him make speeches that there are those in Ontario who can defend themselves against almost any taxation measure which a government would care to try -- they will find the loophole in the law or their accountants will discover for them some shelter from the storm -- and there are those who are particularly vulnerable to taxation techniques.

Unfortunately, at a time, if there ever was a time, when the Treasurer of Ontario could sit back and say, “Here is where I make my move for fairness in the taxation system; this is the time,” he chose not to exercise that option. I think what surprised so many of us was not that in the first year of a huge majority government, all of a sudden there is a need to raise taxes. We anticipated that. Every Tory government I have ever seen in here with a majority did just that. The timing is such that in the first year of a majority they raise taxes and in the last year of a majority, just prior to the election, they try to make it appear as if there are no taxation measures at all at work in Ontario. That is normal.

What I did not anticipate, quite frankly, is that -- I have heard this Treasurer talk at great length on many occasions in this chamber about what is a fair tax and what is unfair -- it seems to me that he and his staff sat down and decided, “How many different ways can I tax people every day?” and used them all. He tried to put forward a budget which in some ways looks modest. A one per cent increase in our retail sales tax does not look like a great deal, unless you have some measured understanding of how many times that one per cent hits someone and how many times that brings in revenue.

I listened with some interest as we discussed why he did not use a tax on land speculation. He said, initially, because it did not work. It struck me as odd. What does he mean it did not work? What he meant, and it is now clear that this is what he meant, was that it does not produce revenue consistently over a long period of time for the government, and I suppose from that perspective, that is right. But the purpose of taxation on speculation is not to generate gobs of money for the government. It is to stop the practice.

1550

Maybe the next logical step, if the government does not choose to use that weapon, is that perhaps it would choose to make land speculation illegal, as it would, for example, insider trading on the stock market. Of course, one of the difficulties it will have to overcome is that the biggest land speculator in the province now is the province of Ontario. It chooses to go into land speculation and it defends the action by saying, “Well, we will give back a percentage of the revenues we get from land speculation to produce affordable housing.” That is not good enough and I think the minister knows that.

You see, the surprise for me, having watched somebody like Darcy McKeough present a budget in this chamber, is that one look at Darcy MeKeough tells you everything about the man. You can disagree with everything that McKeough ever said when he was Treasurer of Ontario, but you simply had to respect who he was and that he put all his values right out front. One glimpse of him would tell you, “Here is someone from the corporate world, from a powerful political heritage.” You know what his priorities will be, you know whom he will tax and whom he will not and you know exactly what you are dealing with.

This Treasurer has a reputation that is quite the opposite of that, as a Treasurer who makes a great deal of the fact that he comes from rural Ontario, that he is a man of modest means, that he is a fair guy, that he hangs out at Earl’s Shell Service and takes advice from those esteemed gentlemen who reside therein. So it was a problem for me to get over the magnitude of the taxation grab that was at work here.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose, because I have known him for some time. I watched him yesterday afternoon go out to the front steps of the Legislature and it seems to me that there, for the first time, he saw what I see, people saying: “This is getting ridiculous. There are people who are wealthy and powerful who are paying no taxes, and there are those of us who stick a bucket under our arm and go to work at a factory early in the morning every day of our working lives.” Or the young woman who worked at a gasoline bar all night and came down here to the protest at noon hour the next day.

What they are trying to do is eke out a living, and in the midst of all this prosperity it sounds as if that should be an easy thing, but for many of our people it is not. A modest taxation effort, to some people, is an inconvenience. If you are affluent, a one per cent raise in a retail sales tax is an aggravation and you do not like it, but it really does not make much difference to you or your family or your income. If you are poor, if you are on a pension, every time the government takes a dollar out of your wallet, it means there is less money for something else.

That is why in many ways people are beginning to recognize the dramatic impact, for example, of food banks on our society. Why is it that in even relatively affluent neighbourhoods these days, food banks are on the rise and people need them? Simply because the cost of housing detracts from their ability to spend money for other things, and that is what made me step back a bit on this budget, to look at it initially and to look at what was done.

Now, I have heard a number of rationalizations as to why the Treasurer in this great economic boom decided to do what he did. Perhaps it is true that this will be the last year when the Treasurer of Ontario has an ability, virtually by himself, to get at something like a retail sales tax. Perhaps by another fiscal year the federal government of Canada, in its machinations about sharing of taxation approaches, will have removed some of his autonomy. Maybe he does really believe that in four years’ time nobody will remember that.

I have in the back of my mind something that bothers me. The Treasurer of Ontario may be right. It may well be true that four years from now, the Treasurer will not talk to anybody about raising taxes. He will say: “Here we are again. It is time for another election. Build a rink. Build a road. Build whatever you want to build. Come to a conference. Have one of these cheques on me. Come to our reception. Pull out the shrimp. Do it all.” I do not doubt that --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am making notes.

Mr. Breaugh: He says he is making notes, but he does not have a crayon in his hand, so he is probably not.

It may be true, sadly, that this is what is going on here. Sadly, it may be true that people will forget.

I know that in my own community I have never seen a budget presented that drew so much fire on the streets. I do not know what it is. Maybe it was just the last little bit that really ticked them off, but I have to say this, they are talking about this in Oshawa a lot, in the truck plant, in the shopping malls, in the rinks and on the ball diamonds. They are aware of what is going on and they are angry. If the Treasurer thought the anger he saw out front from a relatively small crowd yesterday was anything, he should come to my town and walk around it for a while and he will hear it much more.

There are some, I know, who objected to the young woman from Oshawa who came and said some things on the front steps of the Legislature that perhaps were unparliamentary, but she was mild. There were very few adjectives I heard coming out of her mouth. When you walk around the streets on their home turf, they tell you quite freely what they think of this, and they are mad, really mad.

Let me talk a little about some other things I think have to be said. We have discussed housing matters a lot in this chamber in the last little while. There are some terrible ironies having to do with housing.

This government, if it chose to, is positioned as well as any government in the world could be to deal with the housing crisis. I cannot think of another government in the world that has 90 per cent of the land in the province in its hands. It has the one commodity you need to be effective in providing housing programs -- land. When you talk to people who are trying to build affordable housing, they will tell you their big problem is the cost of land.

The province has that land. It was not its decision. It was a fantasy of the previous Treasurer to acquire land, put it into land banks and get it ready to build affordable housing at some point in time. That Treasurer was a Tory. He had the idea of getting it together. He did not know what to do with it after he assembled it. This Treasurer is supposedly not a Tory, but I am saddened to see that he has the land and he decides to become a land speculator, as opposed to using it.

I want to work this in somewhere too: Today I got a reply to a question I put in Orders and Notices about how much land the province does own. The province is still officially saying, “We don’t know.” It is saying, “We are not sure how much property we have in Ontario.”

I cannot believe that. I know that as a member of this chamber I cannot accuse anybody of anything, but I can put on the record that I do not believe that at all. I do not believe Ontario does not know what properties it owns in Metropolitan Toronto. I think it does. It may not have a complete inventory, but I believe it has a pretty good idea. What is more, I will bet there are computers near this building that have computerized records of how much property is owned by Ontario here in Metropolitan Toronto and all across Ontario. I bet that at Toronto city hall they could spin those computers and give us a printout this afternoon of exactly who owns what properties in Toronto.

I believe that could be done. What is happening here is the government is saying, “We don’t want to tell you.”

I do know this: If you drive around or take the TTC around this community, you can get some visible awareness of how much land is owned by the province and how much of it is appropriately used and how much of it is not. I cannot defend why Ontario needs to own parking lots in downtown Toronto, because it does not. I cannot defend why the Ontario Provincial Police needs to have its headquarters down at the lakeshore, because it does not, or the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or a whole range of other things.

I do know that Ontario, if it wanted to immediately address the problem of affordable housing in this community, has the land now. It will not work if its response is to say, “We will sell the land and then we will use a percentage of that money to buy other land elsewhere.”

The answer is embarrassingly obvious. Why do they not use the substantial amount of property they have now to develop affordable housing? Second, why do they not take all the resources that are out there in the community, a variety of groups now, that want to provide nonprofit, affordable housing? They continue to kind of ride herd on those people and make their job difficult.

In my community, in many communities, there are all kinds of people with different kinds of ideas on how you would provide affordable housing. In my community, I guess the biggest one would be some form of co-op housing, and it has been a tradition in my community for a long time. There are parts of Oshawa and over into Whitby where you will see co-op projects that were done in the 1930s and 1940s, so the idea is well accepted by the community.

1600

It does not mean you will not have fights and arguments and all that. Of course you will, as in any other concept that we try to put in. But if you really want to proceed, there is an awareness around the province that the need is there. There is an awareness that the government of Ontario has an obligation to respond to that. There are the groups with the ideas to do that. The money can be found. It can be done. This government chooses not to do it.

The government of Ontario takes a rather strange attitude towards business, I find. There are those who would argue that when you deal with affordable housing, the private sector has a big role to play. Perhaps people do not understand what a businessman is in business to do.

People who are in the land development business are not there to do social good. It does not mean they are bad people. They are there to make money. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. That is highly legal and highly respected by a great many people in our nation, but they are not there to provide affordable housing. If they can make more money by providing luxury condominiums to a market than they can by providing low-cost affordable housing, there is not even a decision to be made; they will provide luxury condominiums. That is why they are in business. It is not a charitable organization; it is a business. They are straightforward about it. They will accept all kinds of conditions you might want to put on them, but they want some fairness,

For example, those members who have spent some time on municipal councils will be familiar with the argument from the development industry that lot levies are unfair. The industry does not like them. But there is not one developer around Ontario who has said, “I do not like lot levies, so I am going out of business.” What they do is accept them. That is a cost of doing business in that community. Many of us who sat on councils when lot levies were first introduced had to bear the brunt of the tough political argument, and it really got pretty basic.

We simply had to say to developers who wanted to build new subdivisions: “We cannot afford to put in the roads and the sewers and the amenities you need to put in a subdivision these days. If you want to build, we have to find a system which allows you to prepay those services. If we can do that, you will be able to proceed.” They said, “Well, we want to proceed, for sure.” So we said, “Here’s a way we can think of that we can finance the construction of the sewers and roads and other services you need to develop.”

Not one of them liked it, but they all said, “OK, if that’s what we have to do, that’s what we’ll do.” They have done that. It does not mean they are going to stop arguing about it. They never will do that. They are business people. They know a good argument can sometimes save them a lot of money.

That is why I was a little apprehensive, frankly, when I saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) rise yesterday and start to make his statement about planning stuff. I guess in a sense it is fortunate he did not really say anything. But I always get a little apprehensive when I see a government saying, “We’re going to rearrange the Planning Act here.”

There are ways I can think of where I would be real happy about that if the government said, “We want to see in every official plan across Ontario an allocation of 25 per cent of the residential units that come on stream to be for affordable housing,” and went on and defined what it meant by “affordable housing” a little bit tighter, and all the municipalities had to play by the same rules. Some would say: “What do you mean? You’re telling us what to do.” But all would have to face the fairness argument that everybody is being required to pitch in on this effort.

The development industry, I am sure, would scream that it is wrong, that it is unfair, that it is socialism, that it is a whole lot of things, but in the end, as long as everybody had to face the same set of conditions, they would accept it.

The reason the private sector is not building affordable housing now is pretty clear. It does not want to, does not have to and can make more money building some other kind of housing accommodation. That seems to me to be an eminently logical argument from their side. They did not go into business to provide for social needs. They went into business to make money and that is all they are doing. That is why, when previous government programs gave money to the private sector and we did not get affordable housing from it, no one should have been surprised, because there never was a requirement to build affordable housing. There was a faint hope that if you gave somebody in the development industry $3 million or $4 million, he might do something good down the line.

These people are not stupid. If they qualify for government grants, they will get them. They do not need the money, but if the government is throwing it away, they know very well how to apply for these funds. If there is no fine print that addresses the affordable housing side of the equation they will not do it; they will take the Renterprise money and build luxury condominiums. The government cannot come back afterwards and say, “That wasn’t why we gave you the money,” because they will hold up the conditions under which they received the money and say: “If you wanted us to build affordable housing, why on earth didn’t you say so? What you said was that you had money to give us, and we’re always interested in that.” That is exactly what they did.

Let me suggest a couple of things that I am sure are not new and that the government may want to consider for a while, particularly having to do with housing.

I watched, for example, the Toronto Home Builders’ Association go through its deliberations on what it might do as an industry to provide affordable housing.

I want to start by saying, as someone who has observed the planning process and the building process for a couple of decades now, that there is no question in my mind that if the private sector wanted to it could build affordable housing. It is also clear to me that it would be nuts to do that when it can take the same land now and make billions of dollars from it. That is apparent to me.

It is apparent to me that in the sale of luxury condominiums, and in rural estates which is now one of the trendier markets, people who own land of any kind, almost anywhere, can really make a huge profit from that; and they are going to do that. They are not going to forego their profits now to do what the government wants to do unless they have to; and in that case they will be looking for some fairness.

There are things governments could do that would solve some of the problems, but none of them are worth doing, in my opinion, unless the initial problem is solved.

If the purpose of the exercise is to provide decent, affordable housing for people, the government has to first say what that is and enter into good, solid business agreements on how it will produce that. That means the government cannot give away money to people any more without having the presence of mind to say, “Here’s what we want at the end of this process, and here’s how much this unit will rent or sell for,” to deal with the matter of speculation.

All I am saying is what I am sure any good businessman would say: do not enter into open-ended contracts where you have no assurances you will get what you are looking for at the end of the process.

Let me run through the list of things the government should not do, which is fairly short. Do not get involved in give-away programs to anybody. In Ontario, every scheme you could think of to give away money has been devised, run by a government and proven to be idiotic. If the government’s version, as we have seen here, is to hand out cheques to people, it should be careful to whom it hands these cheques. It really has to understand that if it addresses the main problem first, the secondary problems will all fall into place afterwards.

But the government could do some things. The reason there are lot levies is that municipalities cannot afford to provide the services. The government could do something about reducing the price of a home in many communities by covering the cost of lot levies. The money would not go to the private sector; it would go to the municipality to provide the service.

If the government chose not to do that, it could simply say to any municipality around, “What’s the problem you’ve got about allowing more development in your community?” Some of them will say, “Well, we have a sewer system that needs to be revamped and we can’t afford to rebuild it.” The government could do that. That would get more housing on stream.

I want to say this: I have no interest, none, in providing a way for the development industry to make more millions of dollars. If that is what this government chooses to do, it is crazy. The development industry does not need the government’s help. It does not want its help, in many cases. It will probably take the money if the government offers it; just do not be stupid enough to do that.

If the government wants to assist people in developing new housing proposals, look at the real problems. For many groups, particularly for many nonprofit community groups, the government cannot have its bureaucrats tell them to go out and do market surveys of their communities. They do not know what it is. What it could do is say to its bureaucrats, “We’re going to attach you to this community nonprofit group for a year, or until this development proposal is accomplished.” Instead of telling somebody to go do a market survey in their community, they should go do it. That will be a useful expenditure of the taxpayer’s dollar.

1610

Instead of having a bureaucrat sit around and design a new form to gather information from a community group, why do they not attach that bureaucrat to a community group for a while to help that group put together the numbers in a way that the government needs to get its approval?

I watched as the minister made his announcement yesterday and he said, “I’m going to take down the minimum number of days that are used for a zoning application.” That is not even the problem, folks. The problem is the maximum number of days that are actually used.

If he really wanted to do that and he really wanted to change in a substantive way a rather cumbersome planning process in Ontario, he would say to all of his bureaucrats: “You’re going to get two cracks at planning matters. One will be when it is introduced. We’ll give you 30 days to put your response into whatever the municipality is. If you can’t get it done in 30 days, send them a letter. You will get another crack at the end of the process; but in the middle of the process keep your hands off, just butt out.”

The truth is that most of our municipal governments are equipped now to handle all these problems and in fact do it. The problem is not that they are doing their job: the problem is that they are doing their job and the Ministry of Housing is doing their job too; as is the Ministry of the Environment trying to do their job too and the Ministry of Natural Resources trying to do their job too. There are about four people working on one job, three of whom have no business sticking their nose in that at that particular time.

Some sorting of the responsibilities could be done that would expedite the process somewhat, but I put these cautions on: you have to know what you want first before you start changing that, because you are messing with people’s rights; and I put a second caution on that you had better carefully define what it is you are attempting to do and get a reasonably solid agreement to produce that. No government in Ontario, in my experience, has ever had the brains to do that.

I will bet that when the members of every family sit at their kitchen table, when they buy a new car or get an addition put on their house, the first thing they want to know is, “How much?” It has always puzzled me that the government of Ontario never bothers to ask: “How much will your apartments rent for? How much will your units sell for? Do you have some protection that if we put an affordable unit on the market today, speculators won’t move in and drive the price of that up?”

It is easy to attack speculators in housing as being evil people. Some are and some are not. Let me try to get this on the record too. There are people from other nations who are in Toronto in particular to buy up real estate and turn it over and make a quick buck. There are others here who want to buy up real estate and who want to just simply invest in it. There are also a lot of people who come from family traditions where their family says it is a good thing to have your house and another house or a small apartment.

Clearly, again, I think the trick for government here is to get its targets right. If you believe that a speculation tax or a law that makes speculation illegal ought to be designed to destroy a family tradition of buying a house that will be available later on in life for the son or daughter, you have the wrong target in mind. If you cannot figure out that you are basically trying to get at those who are doing evil things to your housing market, if you miss that message completely, I do not know whether there is any hope for you.

But it should be obvious -- it is on the record here now -- that there are already people coming into Metropolitan Toronto, buying up apartment buildings and private homes on a large scale and turning them over in a very short period of time for the sole purpose of making large amounts of money, and I believe that is wrong.

I believe it is stupid, for one thing, for the government of Ontario to be working very hard to provide affordable housing for people in need and, at the same time, letting others come into its jurisdiction and destroy whatever it might do in an afternoon. That is precisely what is going on, so it seems to me to be a particularly dumb exercise not to take some defensive action against that.

If the government were to put on the market this weekend 200 houses at $100,000 apiece, which the Toronto Home Builders Association thinks is the price of a modest home these days, and it did not do something that said, “They are $100,000 this Saturday and I want to make sure that a month from now they haven’t gone up to $200,000,” I would say that is stupidity in action if it does not protect itself in some way.

The speculators may not be from Hong Kong; they may be from Ajax. I do not care where they are from. If they are doing something that runs counter to the government’s purpose, the government had better defend itself.

I am amazed sometimes at the blatant stupidity of governments and why they can never seem to come to grips with problems, in part perhaps because governments are often consumed by, “What does the form look like?” and “How many signs can we put in front of the project announcing that the government of Ontario did this wonderful thing?” The thing that never crosses their mind is, “What are we doing here, what are we trying to do and how do we get there?”

In my view, if the government of Ontario took the same attitude as any one of us as private citizens would when we bought anything, if it said, “Well, I’d like a Cadillac but I can’t afford a Cadillac, so I got a good buy on a Chevette,” we would all be a lot better off. You get that by shopping around, setting out the conditions, looking at your bank account and seeing who has financing available.

If you stop to think of the potential of this government now to address a problem like housing, it has immense potential.

It cannot say land is going to bother it. It owns 90 per cent of the land in Ontario. Imagine, if you have friends in the development industry and you said to them: “I’ve got this little piece of property. It’s just down at the bottom of Yonge Street there, right by the lake. The OPP are in there now. We’re going to send those boys up to Downsview or someplace else and give you that land.” These guys would go nuts. They would have the luxury condo signs up there by tomorrow morning.

The government owns what the development industry yearns for. The government has the land. What is the other thing it needs to do to build affordable housing or housing of any kind? It has to be able to finance it. In this budget, for example, the Treasurer did some good things. The government of Ontario is going to give people access -- that is all; not money but access -- to financing, $2 billion worth. There is a lot of money there, and there is a potful more available, because what the government of Ontario has is borrowing power.

The government of Ontario could finance an almost endless number. I cannot tell the members the number of things that have happened in my own community, not because any money changed hands but because somebody went down to Local 222 in Oshawa on Bond Street and went into the executive committee and said: “We don’t want your money. What we want is your borrowing power. Would you help us start a food co-op?” And they said, “Yes.” “Would you help us start a co-op housing project?” And they said, “Yes.”

A billion things have happened in that community and no money has changed hands. What they have used is their borrowing power collectively. When we had great strikes in our community, the auto workers’ credit union said, “People are not going to lose their homes during this strike.” No money changed hands. Nobody lost a dime. What they used was their collective borrowing power to weather through some very tough economic times.

The government has that power. Imagine what a developer would do if government turned over to him or her the whole Planning Act. If the province of Ontario said, “There’s a crisis in housing and we want to build a bunch of units by the end of this year.” Never mind three to five years from now, never mind fiddling with the numbers, just said, “There’s a problem here that has to be addressed now and people are dying because of it now and families are being ruined because of it now,” and it wanted to do something about it. It has all that power to do it.

I really wish it would do that. I see the traditional responses of a government: “Here’s a new program” -- wonderful, but that is not what it is about; or, “We’ll build, in the future, 50,000 units.” It might just as well stand up in the House and say, “We’re going to build four billion houses over the next 2,000 years.” That kind of programming is irrelevant. That kind of statement and aim is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that there is a guy sleeping in the gazebo out on the front lawn who has been there for a year. There is a guy the government could something for. They should help that one and then find some more. I will line them up for them. I would be happy to escort them in here and show them who are the homeless.

1620

I know there is this argument in the community: should the government of Ontario build big things? Should the Toronto Blue Jays get a domed stadium? Why not? I could care less. Should we build an opera house? I am from Oshawa. We are big Opry fans -- Hank Williams, all those guys. We go to see them all the time. The government should build the thing; but it is tough to do that if it does not first address a more immediate need.

Some guy was at the press conference down here that the homeless had. He was from New York City, and an American city is a good example of this. He said, “You know, it can really ruin your night at the opera, having to step over all those homeless people on the way in to the Met.” It is true.

If you stop to think of the American experience, those of us who have visited American cities are very often really impressed by the kind of museums, cultural facilities and grand hotels they have, but we are depressed by the notion that to get to those places you have to step over the homeless all the time. Most of us on all sides of the House would argue that is not the way we do things in Canada. We like the big, showy institution, and that is fine, but we would never say that we can have only that and we cannot provide for the homeless. That is not the Canadian way of doing things.

I hope I am not proposing a revolutionary thought here this afternoon. I am begging for some common sense. I am begging for some fair taxation. I had hoped that when this Treasurer’s government got its majority, he would actually do what he talked about for so many years and make some changes in the taxation process that are fair. What I see him doing is what I have seen every Tory Treasurer I ever saw in my life do, saying: “Well, we’ll help the poor. All they have to do is fill out a form and wait for a year and we’ll give them a cheque from the government.”

Some of the poor are going to die and will never get that cheque. Most of them will not be able to figure out where to go to fill out the form. Many of them will not be able to fill out the form even if it is handed to them. All of them have to wait until this government chooses to give them back the money. It is a phenomenon of Canadian politics. I do not understand this myself, but I will tell members the truth: every year I do my income tax, every year they send me back some of my money and every year I am grateful for it. I cannot figure out the psychology of all this. They stole my money. They used it for a year. At the end of the year they made me fill out this lousy form. I have to mail it to them and they send me back some of my money, and I am supposed to be happy.

Mr. Mahoney: With no interest.

Mr. Breaugh: With no interest. I do not understand Canadians a lot.

One of the problems that I have with the budget is the basic unfairness that is in there, put together by a man who knows better.

I rationalize it this way. Many of the friends of the government are those who are in upper-income brackets to be as fair as I can about it. Many of them, I am sure, will look at this budget and say: “So what? People shouldn’t be smoking anyway. People won’t mind paying a little more sales tax here and a little more there.” As long as the corporate sector does not have to take any increases -- and it did not -- OK.

But the people I represent have a whole different attitude on life, and maybe yesterday, on the front steps of the Legislature, the Treasurer got some sense of the anger and the frustration that is there, some sense of the anticipation that people had that he would now carry out the things that he had talked about for so long.

If this were a Tory government, if D’Arcy McKeough had presented that speech in the Legislature, we could have all said: “What else do you expect? That is who they represent. That is their priority. That is what Tories do.” That is what Brian Mulroney did. That is what Michael Wilson does, and he is an honest man.

You could not find a more honest man in Canadian politics than Michael Wilson. He tells you exactly who he is and gets that message out visually, verbally, in every way conceivable, to tell you which segment of Canadian society he represents -- where he worked, where he lives, whom he plays with, where he went to school, all the things that make a person distinctive. Michael Wilson tells you that.

In a very straightforward way he tells you, “I am here representing a political party that has certain vested interests behind it,” as we all do, “here are what they are and that is why we do not believe in taxing corporations. We think they ought to go their merry way.”

There will be winners and losers in life, and the losers should just lie down and die. People anticipate that from that kind of background, when that is the kind of background you get. They are confused, frankly, by a government that purported to be one thing and, as soon as it gets its majority, turns out to be another. That confusion is translating into anger.

Now, it is true that perhaps they will have some time to make them forget. I suppose it is true that they will now spend three or four years kind of softening them up a little bit. I suppose it is true that they will now begin to address some very real problems. I want to conclude with a little analysis of two or three of the structural problems that I think this government faces and that other governments have had to look at too.

If one has looked at health as an expenditure matter in Ontario, one does not have to be a Health critic very long before one gets a thorough knowledge that this is a lot of money and that when you look at this system, analyse it and try to figure out who is in control of this system, who is accountable for this system, who runs this system, it is pretty easy to get confused. When you ask who is in charge of the hospital’s budget, they will probably point out the chief of staff, or the administrator, or the board of the hospital, or a health council; when you look at them all, you really see that they are all in control and yet none of them are.

That is what confuses people when they say, “What about community health organizations?” The government says, “We cannot afford to do that kind of stuff.” The reason it cannot afford to do that kind of stuff is that there is absolutely no restraint in the system anywhere else. When people who are at the bottom end of the economic ladder in our hospital system turn out to be people who are chronically underpaid, and at the top of the system are those who, if I may phrase it so indelicately, are chronically overpaid, the gap in the middle is --

Mr. Polsinelli: Isn’t there one in the Sault?

Mr. Breaugh: Somebody interjected, “Isn’t there one in the Sault?” That is the problem. Yes, I could find you one of almost anything in Ontario. That is not what we are talking about. That kind of symbolism is ridiculous, and my friend knows that.

The problem that one gets at when one looks at the health care system in Ontario is some pretty undeniable truths. If the doctors leave the hospital for the weekend, and they often do, the hospital continues to run, because the people who make it run are, by and large, nurses, technicians and people who keep the place clean; they are not rewarded very well for their efforts, not in any way.

Let us talk about nurses, for example. There is now supposed to be a nursing shortage in Ontario. A couple of years ago there was supposed to be a surplus of nurses; and as I recall the government encouraged people to come up here from Texas, California and all over and help us out with this surplus of nurses. Now there is supposed to be a shortage of them.

Most of the nursing staff I have talked to do not have money as their number one beef. Their problem is that they do not believe they are getting their fair share of credit for doing things right in a hospital. They know that if the patient is dying they have to find the doctor first of all, but the first person there is the nurse and there is very little recognition for that.

When one visits hospitals a lot -- l do not mean just take a stroll through the hall; I mean go there and see what happens and how it operates -- one soon gets some understanding of the critical role that is played by other than medical staff in the hospital, and by that I mean other than doctors; one sees the role that people play in that.

If we want to develop different methods of providing good health care, and we do, then we first have to get hold of hospitals. How would we do that? I do not believe we do that by starting off a budget year announcing that we are not going to pick up deficits any more. In the first place, that will aggravate a lot of people, but it will not resolve any problems, because they will know that since we have had hospitals in this province, since there has been a government in Ontario, governments have let them run up deficits and have come in at the end of the year with a “Here’s-the-cheque” thing.

The only occasion I can think of when a government did not do that was one year when a guy named Frank Miller decided he was going to go around Ontario and courageously, and stupidly, personally shut down hospitals. He never did. He got halfway around there and got kind of snowballed in Wingham, as I recall it, and stopped the exercise.

The government is not going to do that. It is not going to let hospital administrators run up deficits and then just say, “Have cookie sales.” It is going to have to do that responsibly. If it wanted to do that, it could pinpoint a time three years from now and say: “By then, we’re going to have all of your costs under some kind of control. Somebody is going to have control of that exercise and someone will be accountable, and by this date in history you either conform to this set of guidelines or you’re out of business.” That is going to be tough, but it is going to have to do that kind of stuff.

1630

I think the government had great challenges in front of it. I probably should not say this, but most of us had some anticipation that we would see a government that had the wherewithal to do something different. The great tragedy I see here now is not that it is doing the wrong things but that it is doing the same things. There is no difference, literally, between the previous government and this one. The longer it gets settled into power, the more comfortable it becomes with that role and the more they look like twins. That is sad.

I had some hope that this was a government, for example, which would be a little more open. I am not pretending for a moment that any government in its right mind is going to tell the whole world its innermost secrets, but I would have thought it would be a little more open about the process, that it would not reject out of hand arguments that people have worked at for a long while about appointments of people to public positions, that it would be a little more open about information, that it would be a little more open about the role of the Legislature. Some of this will happen, I hope, in the next little while.

I want to conclude by saying this: I think the Legislature of Ontario is a great joint. I think it is a great place. I enjoy the people here and I enjoy the process here. I will say it again this year and I hope I never have to say this again: the great sadness here is the wasted potential, the talent and the ability of the people inside this chamber who are not allowed to do a job. It is such a waste. It is such a waste to say that the only reward is to the few who will make it to cabinet, and they will pretend to have power while their staff runs the joint. That is the truth.

There is a program called Yes Minister, which should be taken off the air because it is far too truthful to be exposed. That really is the way life is at Queen’s Park. Ministers should understand that they cannot do everything, that a minister who has 15,000 civil servants working in his or her ministry cannot possibly know everything that is going on in there. But they had better know something. They had better figure out what their role in life is and they had better not be badgered by their bureaucrats. They have to carve out that little role for themselves.

The sad thing, and it remains as sad now as it was when I first got here, although it is a little better, is the wasted talent that comes in here and sits as members. Some get jaded and some get disgusted. Some walk away and some go back home and his wife says, “You told me going into politics was going to be great stuff and it’s a lousy life.” And it is, many times; it can also be a great life. But there are times when each one of them, even those, moan in the back of the limousine on the way home, when each one of them will admit: “This is not what I thought it was going to be. This is not exactly what I wanted to do.”

I will conclude with this. Sadly enough, one of the worst things you see in here, and I think we see it now, is that people come into this process and they have good ideas and they have guts and determination and they want to do the right thing and they get siphoned off somehow. It happens in a way that people often are not even aware of. A little while later, they have no determination of their own any more. They just want to go with the flow. “Whatever the Premier’s office wants to do today, that’s what we will do. If we’re disgusted with the process, we’ll just get in the back of the limo and find a restaurant somewhere and we’ll decide what else we could do with our lives.” That is sad. It is sad to see the determination and the energy of a great many people come in here and get thwarted.

On the good side, there are also those who come in here and who change this process just a little bit. That is really what one can do. If each one of us, as members of the Legislature, could walk away from this building whenever our careers are through and say, “Well, I didn’t change the world, but I changed things just a little bit in my ministry, or at Queen’s Park.” Cumulatively again, as a group, we can do many things. Individually, we cannot do very much.

I want to finish this little diatribe by saying that Mel Swart is an example of what I just talked about. As someone who came here and who has -- the things we share are immense -- but he has an immense love for this joint, for these people, for this process, and he does it well. I was in here last Thursday afternoon when the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was doing his budget speech and I was sitting over on the government side chatting with some folks, and I looked at him and I thought, “That’s amazing: that energy, that focus, that ability and that pure enjoyment of being here as a participant, of changing things.”

For those members who may not have been in government long enough yet to know, I am sure some of this group over here would be able to account to them that when the member for Welland-Thorold gets on the warpath it does not matter how many bureaucrats you have in front of you, you are going to get hurt sooner or later. It is just a matter of time until he gets you, and he knows that. He has changed the system in Ontario a lot -- not as much, I am sure, as he wants to. He does not get all the things he wants. I can think of one or two little items he is still working on, but he has had an impact here, and each member who comes here can do that.

That is a big challenge for an individual. There are lots of diversions that kind of shut you down and stop your mind. Most of us get used to the idea after a while that in many places you are not supposed to think. You are certainly not supposed to speak. A number of members have approached me about the whole idea of, “Are we allowed to actually say what we think, or are we supposed to say only what the government wants us to say or what my party wants me to say?” Those who know me know that I occasionally get into hot water for saying what I think, but I do find that in the long run that is the best way. At the end of the day, everybody can be mad at me, but if I am mad at me there is real trouble. That is the distinction I would make.

That is one of the frustrations that I share about this budget. I had hoped the current Treasurer of Ontario would make a difference. I had hoped he would do it in a different way. I suppose a lot of people will talk in their speeches about the fact that they did not get all the money for schools that they thought they should have. I did not either, but I had looked for something more. I had looked for some differences, some changes.

This budget could have been presented by Darcy McKeough, very easily. It could have been put forward by any one of a number of people. The shame is that it was not. It was presented by a member who has been here for a long time, who knows better, who I think wants to do different things and he did not. He may have misjudged this.

In this kind of parliament, this is the only hope for it. The only hope for changing this budget will be if the people of Ontario say, as they said on the front steps just yesterday: “This is wrong. This is really wrong. You have gone too far, and you ought to retract some of that.”

I hope they will. I believe in the democratic process as much as anybody else does around here, and there is always a chance that democracy will break out. There is always a chance that this government will actually listen to people.

But I would caution them. If they think, as some do now I guess, that they are the government, they have the power and they can do no wrong: look to Ottawa. There is your example of a government that had its huge majority. It had the most power that any government can gather together in this country, and look what has happened to them. Look at what a sad spectacle the people of Canada look at every day as they look at their federal government in action. This government is in danger of being just like them. It is a step away.

For many of them, I know this is not advice they want to hear, but I think they ought to hear it and I think they ought to heed it, just as the Treasurer did not want to hear what he heard on the front steps of the Legislature yesterday, but he needs to. That is the democratic process. That is the response.

I give him full marks. I give him full marks for going out there yesterday and facing that crowd. I know how he felt; I have faced similar crowds myself. It is not a nice feeling when a whole bunch of people yell and scream at you, but that is the interface that, theoretically, belongs in a democracy. The people who have been given the responsibility of making important political decisions like the formulation of a budget should go right outside and face the population. It is rare to see that happen. It happened yesterday, and I think the Treasurer of Ontario got a small sample of how some people feel about his budgetary process, and they did not like it.

I am not making an argument that all people feel the same way. I know they do not; but I think he deserves, as a member who has been here for a long time and has earned, quite properly, a reputation for fairness, an opportunity to rethink some of what he did in that budget, and so do the people of Ontario.

1640

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in the last comments of the member for Oshawa.

I think he well knows that I am a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, as a number of us are here in the Ontario Legislature. We review the prebudget process in Ontario. When we talk about the Treasurer and what action has taken place, I feel, as a member of that committee -- and perhaps other members have taken part in it -- we may well be responsible for the tax increases.

I will just go through a list of them. This is a list of the recommendations. There was a minority report by the Conservatives, but they think on the same lines as what we have suggested here.

“Provincial funding of capital grants should be increased so that school boards can undertake renovations, modernization and new construction where necessary, and enable them to deal with the serious strains on their system.” We have seen additional funding go to the school boards.

“The government should provide additional funds for the purpose of pure research in post-secondary institutions; further, capital expenditures and operating grants for Ontario’s colleges and universities...” We have seen an increase of funding in this area in the new budget.

“The government should review the current municipal deficiencies in relation to the Ministry of Transportation’s subsidy level with a view to significantly increasing the Ministry of Transportation budget for municipal roads.” We have seen tax increases in this area. We have seen the increase in the cost of gasoline. This is earmarked to go into this area of additional funding for municipal roads.

“The provincial and federal governments should financially assist municipalities in the implementation of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement (MISA) program as the environmental benefits resulting from this program will extend throughout the community, the province and the nation.” We have seen a 51 per cent increase in the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment this year.

“The province should pursue a trilevel financial agreement for the overall funding of infrastructure.”

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s two minutes are up.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to compliment the member for Oshawa on his speech. I think in his 50-minute presentation he was quite eloquent and entertaining. I must say, as all members do he quoted selectively from the budget and from those selective quotes he deduced certain assumptions and reached certain conclusions; not all were conclusions I would have reached. Obviously, I do not share all the philosophy and ideas that the member put forward.

Notwithstanding all that, I would like to say that I did enjoy listening to his speech. I do agree with a lot of the items the member pointed out. I will not say which ones I agree with and which ones I do not agree with, but all in all, it was a good speech. I enjoyed it and I compliment him.

I see that the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) in the back is yawning. I anticipate he is going to be the next speaker for the Conservative Party. I think I will enjoy listening to him too.

Mr. Beer: The comments I would like to make with respect to the honourable member’s speech relate perhaps not so much to specific budgetary items but more to some of the comments he was making towards the end of his remarks that dealt with the nature of this place, the kind of debate we have and the way in which members may make contributions.

I relate my comments back some 10 years when for a number of years I served on the staff when Dr. Stuart Smith was the Leader of the Opposition. It strikes me, in coming back, that there have been a number of important changes in the way this place works which have enhanced the role of members, but we are still not there yet.

I suppose anybody in a majority situation realizes the responsibilities that individual members have in trying to find some way in which they can make more of a contribution. Certainly in the area of committees, I note a number of changes from the late 1970s to the way that committees function right now.

In thinking out loud, it seems to me that one of the things that I think would be positive and healthy is that over a period of time, we would not necessarily be shocked or surprised if a committee might, in reviewing government policy, come in with some recommendations that were different. Indeed, to the point that this became accepted, it would not necessarily be front-page news, so that one was not always worried, “You will make the front page because your committee has recommended something that is a bit different from what is supposed to be going forward,” whether we are talking about social policy, economic policy or anything of that nature. I think that would be a healthy development in the way in which this place works, because when we are listening to comments such as the honourable member has been making, one has a sense of being engaged in debate and that is one of the things we should be doing here.

Mr. Mahoney: I, too, enjoyed the speech. I was curious, though, as to whether it was a budget speech, a housing speech or a speech on social and political conscience; but there were some very valid points and I would like to address some of the issues in the housing comments.

I heard reference to the issue of affordable housing, which people have suggested we should magically define. Yet I have not heard in my time at Queen’s Park or in my previous life as a municipal politician, and have yet to hear anybody come up with a real, viable definition of the term “affordable housing.”

I suggest that our major problem in housing is social housing and the provision of social housing, because frankly, a single mother or a pensioner on a fixed income or a family classified as the working poor in this province, in my opinion, really do not care whether they own or rent a house. They would like to own it, but they just want to be able to afford the monthly rent. That I classify in the social housing area.

I think what this budget has done and what this government has done is shown a commitment to the best system for the delivery of social housing in the province, and it is not through using an Ontario Housing Corp. format but rather through the delivery system in place in the nonprofit sector, where you provide low-cost financing, which we are doing with the $2-billion fund the honourable member referred to, to allow the nonprofit companies in both the public sector and the private sector to access this fund to be able to build in the nonprofit area and therefore satisfy that social housing problem.

There is a tremendous expectation in the community, they talk about building the $99,000 house. The member is absolutely right: when they can sell one for $200,000 and make more money, why would they build one for $99,000 and lose money?

Mr. Breaugh: Just briefly, to show that there is some hope in the process, the member from Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) and I have been here, I think, about the same time and we have seen this place change immensely.

It is not what it should be at all, but it is getting there. The Treasurer and I have shared on many occasions the fact that we thought there ought to be a committee that looks at finance in a different way than we have ever looked at it before, that looks a little bit ahead of things, at what kind of expenditures and what kind of revenues they might gather and how they might do it. We have that now. It is not the most effective weapon we all thought we might get, but it is getting there. Those of us who have been around for a while know this, too. We may lose a battle or two today, but if we are around tomorrow the fight will still be on and we can continue that, and a number of us have.

I am interested in some of the other responses. I appreciate the compliments, but I will ignore them as I do the insults. It is interesting that people will search for a definition of “affordable housing.” I can find a thousand definitions of affordable housing. All the government has to do is stop talking to its bureaucrats and start talking to people who need some housing. They will state precisely, to the penny, what they can afford to pay for a house or for rental accommodation and what they cannot. That should be the kind of definition-making the government gets.

I know there are those who will laugh at this idea, but try this on for size. Would it not be wonderful if, some day, a Treasurer could produce a budget and those who were members of the cabinet were bound to help him get it through the process, but every other member in here was free to say: “I think that’s a good idea and that’s a lousy idea; and maybe you ought to rethink this one; and I will support this bill but I won’t support that one.” I wonder what kind of legislative process it might be, should that be allowed to happen. It might even be called a parliament that works as a parliament.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Durham East.

1650

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity on this Thursday afternoon. Is there any place the members would rather be than right here in the parliament of Ontario, so that we may participate in the budget debate?

I too listened with great interest to my colleague the member for Oshawa. He was elected, I guess, some 18 months prior to my election. As tough as he and his association are out in Oshawa, he has generally left me alone and I have generally left him alone. We have had that kind of a rapport over the years.

He has centred in on some interesting aspects of the budget, but I want to take up on a particular issue that is deep and dear to my heart. I brought this to everyone’s attention back in the throne speech debate. I got some giggles about that, and all members thought I was out of my mind. But, lo and behold, here is the member for Oshawa coming --

Mr. Mahoney: It was our first clue.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, the only one who thinks I am out of my mind is baloney from Mississauga --

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: From where?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: In any event, we will save the interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I remind the honourable member that he is to speak to the other honourable members by their ridings, not by their first names.

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Your reminding the member to address members by their ridings is quite appropriate and appreciated, but if he is going to use my name, would he please use the right one?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Cureatz: We got that all straightened around. The interesting thing is what is actually taking place here with the budget debate. Let us face it: it is a touch boring. Hands up. Who would agree with that? Let me tell the folks at home, they have all put their hands up here, because it is a little tedious and boring with this mundane process.

Let us face it. Do members think the Treasurer, who I am sure is sitting in his office this afternoon or driving in the limousine with his TV there behind the driver, is tuning me in and listening to my concerns about the budget? Do they think he is going to take full-hearted any aspect of what the member for Oshawa had to say?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Treasurer has better taste than that.

Mr. Cureatz: No, of course not; and I can only say to the honourable member for wherever that there is not a cabinet minister in here. That is how interested they are in this famous budgetary debate.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: Where is all the cabinet? Where is the front row?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Two points, Madam Speaker: First, the Treasurer has more taste than to tune in the member for Durham East. Second, I point out that there is indeed a cabinet minister in the House at this point: myself, as Minister of Labour.

Mr. Cureatz: I will rephrase my comments. There is not a cabinet minister of substance in the House who really is running the show around here. That goes back to the member for Oshawa’s comments about the wasted talent here in this assembly.

I have said in the past, I will say now and I will say in the future that there are four people here who run the government of Ontario, and all the members know who they are. I used to refer to them as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, taken out of the good book. But I have given them too much status, because really they are the Four Ponypeople.

When I look back over the agenda that has taken place from September 10, 1987, it is absolute chaos. I respect the fellows there. I do not know the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that well, but certainly the Treasurer, the Premier, the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and I have had occasions to be on committees together. When I was Deputy Speaker, I listened to them whine and groan on my left over the years gone by.

But indeed I am going to refer to some of the aspects in terms of what has taken place with some of the policies. Sunday shopping: was that a good one for back home? And how about this one? The budget and the increase to eight cents. Now, come on: did the Treasurer come into caucus and say: “OK, everybody, here’s what we’re going to do. Don’t panic. It’s going up to eight cents. It’ll be fine. Not to worry one bit. The people of Ontario will take to the increase in the taxes.” How many phone calls did members get in their constituency offices?

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Five? Then there are 5,000 people out there in the member’s constituency who are a little disappointed about the approach the government of Ontario has taken with regard to this budgetary increase.

I say to the honourable member -- if I am going to get his name right, I will get his riding right -- I say to the member for Mississauga West, who of course is new around here, that he does not appreciate that actually the budgetary debate -- and I say this too for the benefit of all the people at home, whichever magic camera is on me at the moment -- does not necessarily centre in on the particular aspects of the budget. And why does it not? Because the Treasurer is not going to change it anyway.

The tradition of the Legislature around here has been that the members have the opportunity of a free-wheeling discussion so that they can bring forth some thoughts and concerns that they have, not only about the budget but also about different aspects. I remind all those Liberal back-benchers that this is their time to get up and talk about their concerns in their riding so that they can photostat Hansard and send it back home and everyone can be assured that they are doing their bit.

But the reality is that they are not doing their bit, because it is the Four Ponypeople who are running the show here. When they come into caucus they strike the agenda, and all those back-benchers, because they do not know the process, stand up and say, “Aye, aye, three bags full.” But there is a way to stop this, and I have told them in the past in the debate on the speech from the throne.

I am going to follow up on the comments from the member for Oshawa about wasted talent. Listen, there is great talent here in this chamber. They would not have got there if they did not have something going for them, outside of the Liberal sweep that took place on September 10. I say to the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) that she is going to have a tough row next time around.

Each and every member knows that is so if he is at all sensitive to politics, because with this budget there are going to be a few people who are going to be reminded, and we will do our best to remind them. During the all-candidates’ debates and on the platform we are going to be saying: “Yes, well, what about the eight cents? What about the increase in the budget? How about that one?” I can tell members, there is yet hope here with this large majority government.

The member for Oshawa lambasted what is happening up in the federal government. We will see how that unfolds, and if there is an election this fall, we will see the reflection of what takes place in the people’s choice. Do members know what? That is what is going to happen here when we finally roll around in three and a half years. We will look back in hindsight to that federal election -- whenever it is going to take place; possibly this fall or the spring of 1989 -- and then the members opposite will know what is in store for them.

But there is hope, and for those of my colleagues who are not here, I know each and every member will take copies of Hansard, like the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong), and make sure that their other colleagues on the back benches are going to take it home and read it with great interest to give them some insight and some opportunity as to how they can change the system here and have some input.

How are they going to do that? I am going to refresh their memories again. There can be one or two of them, three or four, maybe even 10 – goodness, I would be happy to see four. Four of them could get together and form a little clique within the Liberal Party. They are not all going to make the cabinet; I said that in the last speech I had on the throne speech and I am going to say it again. It is impossible for all of them to make the cabinet. How is the Premier going to do it? I mean, how many has he got? He has 25 or 30 people in cabinet. How many is he going to switch the next time? Five? And those five are going to be like Ron Van Horne. They are going to resign and leave angry, not that I particularly blame them.

So the Premier replaces five; he replaces 10 at most. There are 45 of them. That means there are going to be 35 of them who are not going to be in cabinet and they might as well resign themselves to it right now. Trust me, I have been there and I know what happens. I know the government House leader. I have heard him speak. He is as smooth as silk.

“Oh, yes,” he says. “Not to worry, Cindy. We’re going to be looking at everyone’s credentials. We’re going to see how it’s all going to unfold, and if you’ve done a good job in the House, like Steve, standing up and asking questions; or if you have done an admirable job out in the riding looking after your constituency work, we are going to put a little checkmark beside your name. Then when the next shuffle comes around, we are going to add up all the checkmarks and, lo and behold, presto, you are going to be called in the cabinet.”

Let me tell members that does not happen. There is no sheet and there is no checkmark system, because the four are running the show, just like -- and I hate to say it -- another previous government. I do not mean the minority government, where the New Democratic Party supported those people by the way; I mean in the times gone by, under the Conservative administration, where indeed -- and that is why I know of what I speak -- the then god emperor and his four or five people met Tuesday morning for breakfast and then came to caucus and told us how it was all going to happen.

Let me tell members, if I had to live it over again -- there are one or two of us here who are still around from that old caucus time, and we have talked and we have said, “Boy, if we had known the system better, we would have been a little more vocal and we would have manipulated it a little better so that we could have had an impact and influence on the policies that are taking place, like the budgetary policy or Sunday shopping.”

Mr. Neumann: We don’t use you as a role model.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the member for Brantford, a role model? I would like to hear about his political stand back in the 1970s. What party was he running for? Now look at him here, and he is talking to me about role models? That is how much credence I give to him about his comments.

1700

I do not bet for one moment that he went around in the last election -- as a matter of fact, I do not think any of the Liberal members went around in the last election -- the Liberal candidate against me did not put in his pamphlet that the government was, for instance, going to raise the sales tax to eight cents.

Which member of the government did that? For the folks at home, I am going to ask one more time. I want all the Liberals who in their pamphlets and during the campaign and in the all-candidates’ debate said, “Get me elected, because we are going to raise taxes in the next budget and we are going to put the sales tax up to eight per cent,” to put their hands up. Who said that? Looking around, friends at home, I do not see one person, not an iota, not a Liberal who said during the campaign that the Liberals were going to raise the sales tax.

I will tell the back-benchers opposite, they are getting it now in their riding offices and they are going to be getting it in the next election. But it goes back to my point. How are they going to have an impact, two or three of them? There are one or two already talking.

Now, let me see. The member for York East (Ms. Hart), who replaced Bob Elgie who got a nice job at the Workers’ Compensation Board, came in in the by-election and did exceedingly well. Lo and behold, she sat there very patiently, a very well educated woman, extremely bright, I want to tell the members, and she has been passed over once, she has been passed over twice and she is getting a little disgruntled around here.

She is saying: “Now, wait a minute. I’ve done my bit. I’ve served my time. I was here when I was called for during the minority-government days when we had vote after vote, and now I am still here and nothing’s happening. It’s a waste of time, it’s a waste of my talent, in terms of my trying to have some input into the Liberal administration.”

How about another person? How about the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson)? I will tell the members there is a strong individual for them. He has brought forward some private members’ resolutions and bills that are individual in nature. But he is flexing his concerns. There are two of the back-benchers. How about the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes)? We have not heard from him lately after he was dumped from cabinet. Unless he runs federally, I have some hope for him. So there are three. I am already going to select a committee among the Liberal back-benchers.

There is hope for the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) and the member for Mississauga West, but they are still playing the game. They are still trying to be Goody Two Shoes away in the back benches, asking the planted questions during question period. They think there is a real list that the House leader is keeping. There is no list and they are not going to figure this one out until after the next election, if they are still around here.

So the wasted talent need not be wasted. I say to the members in the back benches, two or three of them or four or five can get together and start striking their own agenda. They can strike a little chairperson of the committee -- one cannot call them chairmen anyway -- and when the next caucus is called, they can have their little agenda. I have thought this one through too. In case they are fighting among themselves as to who should be the chairperson of their little committee, they can just switch it around every month so they all have a chance of being chairperson of the committee.

Then, in caucus, when the front four come in and the Premier with his entourage and, no doubt, Hershell Ezrin, who really runs everything behind the scenes anyway -- I cannot say anything bad about Hershell. I have to say he is a nice individual. In the old days, when he was with the Leader of the Opposition’s office, I bumped into him casually at, of all places, the water fountain and I got to know him. I did not realize he was with the opposition. He thought I was with his own team. So we got along marvellously well in the old days and we have kept up the same kind of rapport, although it is a little more distant now because, of course, I am in opposition and I have to give him and his team the devil.

In any event, with the committee structure that they can form of all the back-benchers, they can strike their own agenda. Let me ask them, do they not think for one minute that the House leader of the Liberal Party is not sweating a little bit that this might happen? His job is to quell all those people, to make sure they toe the line, to make sure they are not standing up and asking embarrassing questions, to make sure they are not putting the ministers on the spot. Do they not think he is a little worried about it? Let me tell them, he is worried silly about that.

But they can really do a cute number in here. They can set aside those great concerns they have about getting the call from the Premier and being asked to join the cabinet because, as I said, there are just too many of them. They should face it. So what can they do? As the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has indicated, there is some great talent and they can have an influence.

Let’s face it. There are 17 of us and there are 19 NDP members. We are all carrying two or three ministries, as critics, trying to do question period, trying to carry on with these kinds of debates. We cannot do the whole show. Those people can have a positive impact in here. I still have high hopes for them, that the light will dawn. We are only six months in since the election. I give them another six months.

There will be a cabinet shuffle this summer. There will be more of them disappointed, and then maybe they will be thinking: “At last, we see the light. We want to do something of a positive nature right here at Queen’s Park, and with the front four who are really running everything.” Enough of this all-one-team business, because let me say, when the writs drop and the election is on, it is every person for himself.

They will be running and they will be defending the eight-cent increase in the sales tax. I only mention that because that is something people can point to. We have had the increase in the personal income tax and the increase in the gas tax, but let us face it, people will forget about that. But they are not going to forget about the Peterson bite; as they termed it back in the old days, the Frost bite.

I am going to be reminding people about that increase, because that is something they are going to be able to see day in and day out. It is going to be a sad day because, as the Liberals are canvassing door to door, knocking away, with their little pamphlet, people are going to be saying: “Wait a minute. Didn’t you guys increase the taxes to eight cents? I don’t remember you saying that during the last election. Now here you are, trying to get re-elected. Are you going to promise again that you’re not going to raise the taxes?”

Trust me. There is hope. Back-benchers should have their select little committee so they can start putting the front bench on notice and start hammering them from the back. We are doing the best we can over here from the front. Not all those people. They are banging away liked trained seals. Let us have some backbone over there. Let us see them get right after the people who are really running the show and make them a little nervous. Make them attune to things.

I can hardly criticize the Treasurer personally. I too have known him for a good number of years and he has done me the odd favour from time to time when he was in opposition. I can only say that with a person of his stature, who has served his constituency for such a long time, it is virtually impossible for me to criticize him personally. He has stood the hours of the time of the Liberal Party in opposition, years and years with the Conservative rule, and now finally he has the opportunity.

But that is not to say I cannot give a whack or two in terms of his approach and his ideas. I can only say to him -- and someone should take him a little copy of Hansard -- that he should have contemplated his toes a little longer, and then maybe he would have had a better feeling of the direction in terms of how he should put forth his budget. Of course, we all really know that his success has only been because of his most charming and delightful wife, Dorothy. I can only describe her with one word, and that is a real lady. His success is in great part due to having someone like her behind him.

I know the Liberal back-benchers think I am right out to lunch, but it is going to happen. They are going to get frustrated. They should listen, and I will share a couple of things with them just to show my sincerity, that I speak from the heart.

Do they think the NDP over here are all getting along so marvellously well? I can only bring to their attention the facts about my colleague the member for Oshawa and his concerns about the recent election. I give him credit. He said so himself; he said he speaks his mind. When the leader of the NDP said: “It was a great victory. We’re in opposition,” I read the member in the Oshawa Times saying: “Some victory. We dropped from 28 seats to 19. That’s no victory.” The member had the guts to say that.

I will ask if members think there are one or two concerns here in the Conservative caucus. Would they believe me if I said everything is fine and roses?

Mr. Neumann: No. You’re in the back bench.

Mr. Cureatz: That is right. He is a little more astute than I thought. That is right. I am in the back bench.

Do members think I have not expressed one or two of my concerns about how I see the front people running the show around here? I have only to think about when I asked the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) way back when about how the Niagara Regional Police was confiscating weapons and then reselling them. I had asked some questions in the House about how maybe they should follow the same course as the Durham Regional Police and take them in to Lasco Steel and melt them. I casually mentioned that to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves). Lo and behold, two weeks later there is a private member’s bill from him stealing my idea that all police commissions should be melting confiscated weapons.

1710

Do members think we are having such a grand time over here? Well, we put on the nice front and we all say we are a happy little unified Conservative caucus, all 17 of us, including my new seatmate over here, whom we laud in her great victory over Sunday shopping in the Premier’s home town. I am just trying to relate to those members my sincerity, and I am sharing these things with them so that they can appreciate that maybe they should be looking in terms of their own experiences of what is taking place with their wasted talents and get their act together and start asking the people in the front bench some serious questions on the approaches they are taking.

I will bet that on Sunday shopping there are at least 25 of them who would like to say to the Premier, “Let’s turn the policy around.” I will tell them, if one member did it, the Premier would start shaking in his boots, because it would be the first sign of the crack in the caucus. If one member stood and said, “Mr. Premier, do you think you would re-evaluate your stand on Sunday shopping?” he might have a chance of getting in cabinet then, because: “Holy smokes, we’ve got a rebel on our hands. We’d better shut him up and put him in cabinet.”

But then, to stop that, if five or six of them get together and do it in unison, they have protection in numbers. Then they are going to be making a worthwhile contribution in these chambers not only in terms of the direction the government is bringing forward with legislation but also in terms of their own constituencies. They can go back home and say to their constituents, “Never mind the diatribe we heard about what a great, fantastic budget it was, and how we’ve taxed the people but we’re going to be spending the money.” They are going to go back home and say: “Doggone it, I didn’t agree with the Treasurer about the budget and the increase to eight per cent. I didn’t agree with Sunday shopping.”

There are one or two thoughts that I wanted to share with members about the impact of the budget. Strangely enough, my time is winding on so quickly, but I want to refresh their memory about the throne speech of 1987. We all forget about the throne speech, but let me just highlight a few little things.

Financial management: They are going to have a great financial management plan and scheme. Do members think we have seen this in the budget?

Education and literacy training: We just passed an all-party resolution brought forward by my New Democratic Party colleague about concerns that he has in terms of the lack of education instruction for the deaf. I saw nothing in terms of the budget for that.

Affordable quality housing: My colleague the member for Oshawa certainly centred in on the lack of direction and policy. I say to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), who also is not here -- and as I said, there is not a cabinet minister in these chambers who is taking responsibility about this budget whatsoever. That is how weak they are about it on this Thursday afternoon. You would think they would all be here banging away at the desks, shouting me down and saying what a fantastic budget it is.

Agriculture: Holy smokes, I wonder if members heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) stand up and spew forth all kinds of great and wonderful things, and he shouts so great.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Who says there is no cabinet minister?

Mr. Cureatz: Well, I am corrected again, and I will not be so rude as to say to the folks at home there is not a minister with substance, because I am looking for one or two little assistances in my riding, so I will be a little more kind and say there is a minister with almost substance in the chamber. Does that make him feel better?

Mr. Furlong: There are two.

Mr. Cureatz: Two. Well, we notice that he did not even comment about whether he is going to allow Ontario Hydro -- I am going to get to the garbage later. Do not worry; that is on the list.

This is interesting. I want to compare what has happened with some other provinces and their budgetary process. Newfoundland’s 1988-89 budget -- are members ready for this? Who holds power in Newfoundland? The Conservatives, did someone say? Do members know what happened with their budget? The budget contained no major tax increases. A Conservative government; see that?

Now listen to this.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: How about Nova Scotia? This is a good one. Was it held by the Progressive Conservatives? Yes, I think so. An optimistic budget was delivered. See? Two Conservative governments in provinces across Canada.

Now let us take a look at what has happened in Ontario. Wait until I get to the press clippings in Ontario about the budget that has taken place here.

But how about some other Liberal administrative governments across Canada? Prince Edward Island, the 1988-89 budget: two major revenue measures of increases.

How about New Brunswick? Wow, talk about a majority government. The Premier’s first budget and the first Liberal budget in the province in 18 years was a tough budget which increased taxes and cut programs. I say to members, is that what we have seen here in Ontario with increases in taxes?

We heard the Treasurer on television. He said, “We need all this increase in money for all the programs that we’re going to require funding for.” Let us just take a look at all the wonderful programs, which I have had the opportunity of having some relationship with.

For instance, this is one that I think some members may have encountered. This is a nice little practical problem that we should, in terms of private members, resolve. Some members must have had a call from people who have bought a large-ticket item and were paying the sales tax at seven per cent. They have already paid for it. The item will not be delivered until now, now that the eight per cent has come into effect, and they are going to be expected to pay the increase. Some of this is substantial.

Surely there should be some regulation passed, or the Treasurer could say that if an item was bought while under the seven per cent program, then that is all they pay. Some members must have had a phone call like that in their riding offices. Why do they not put some pressure on the Treasurer and say: “That ‘s sort of reasonable, Bob. Why don’t you come across and allow that to take place to give some relief to those people who have been caught in that situation?”

I have a letter, interestingly enough, to myself from James F. Hall from Port Perry: “As our representative, what are you doing about this Liberal ripoff of a budget? How about speaking out against it?”

I can only say to him that I am doing my best and, of course, I will indeed make sure that he gets a copy of Hansard, and along with his name, those of the other people who have expressed their concerns, such as Thelma Hall, Ernest Woods, Cameron Aldred, Beulah Woods, Garnet Woods, Lulu Ratiston, Gina Sonnermann, Laurel Hillier, Nancy Hillier and Steve Hillier. For the Hansard people, we will make sure we get all the correct spellings about that. I will inform them that we are doing our best to ensure that the Liberal administration will not get away with the increase in funding of taxes that it has done in this last budget.

Curiously enough, the member for Oshawa brought forward the aspect of the protest that took place. Funnily enough, I happened to be at the west end of the building, and I wanted to go to see a CBC program taking place. There is a newsperson, Donna Tranquada, and I wanted to see what Donna Tranquada looked like. I have heard her for the last three or four years.

Lo and behold, I walked by and there was the Toronto Sun, big van, big truck, a whole bunch of people, and I thought, “Holy smokes, this is this budget protest.” Sure enough, there came the Toronto Sun columnist. He came out with all of the petitions, and by golly, the Treasurer showed up. I give credit to the Treasurer for taking the flak.

But I can remember the old days when Bette Stephenson stood right out there -- and I happened to have the office right next door, as Deputy Speaker -- and the university students were hammering the heck out of her. The current Treasurer was there in the audience clapping away: “Give it to them, people. Give it to old Bette.” Well, there he was, and now it is his turn to take a whack at it.

Strangely enough, the Port Perry hospital gave me a call today, and it has a deficit of $127,000. It has yet to have any kind of response from the Ministry of Health, and here we keep hearing the aspect of the budget and how we had to have the increase in taxes. I know the member for Durham-York would appreciate this, because no doubt one or two of his constituents have to use the Port Perry hospital.

They are getting nowhere with the civil service. I am going to have a meeting with them next week. We are going to start working our way up the ladder, and it is going to be interesting if we have any input from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) about the working expenses at the Port Perry hospital. I hope we have a little more success, I say with all due reverence to the member for Durham Centre, than the honourable member had in terms of some the problems he is having with his hospital there.

I hope she is not going to play some cute political games that she has pulled off with me, as I reprimanded the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) coming out to my riding, cute as a little teddy bear. “Here I am everybody, and I am looking at generating stations.” The courteous thing, of course, is to include the sitting member, notwithstanding that he is in opposition, because a station of that magnitude, $12 billion, has a huge impact on the community and on other communities.

Does the minister give the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) a call when he goes to visit Durham West? I somehow think he does, and I am awfully disappointed that he did not give me a call, because we are all serving the people of Ontario. That kind of station has a huge impact on commerce and employment. When we have strikes, people are angry at him, now that he is the Minister of Energy.

1720

Listen, we can work along together on some of these aspects, but I do not find it so conducive to do so if he thinks he is going to play cute political games, like the Minister of Health, who, when we had an anniversary for the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital -- I think it was 60 years; I just forget for the moment -- on the night of the anniversary, there is the chairperson of the hospital committee standing up and saying, “Oh, by the way, I just received a letter this afternoon from the Minister of Health announcing that, through the good offices of the former Liberal candidate during the last election and the Durham region” --

[Applause]

Mr. Cureatz: Is that how you people want to play politics? Are you playing with people’s lives by playing politics in members’ communities and doling out money in their own ridings and when there is an opposition member? Well, that is great, because when I am on the campaign trail the next time around, I am going to be reminding people of the kind of politics the Liberals play in terms of handing out money for health purposes, and they are using it for political purposes only. Lo and behold, she continued by saying, “And we just thank the Liberal candidate very much for trying to get and getting this $8-million grant for us.”

I was working on that thing for nine years in my community. I went through a number of Health ministers. We had the approval for $6 million, but under minority government they did not come forward with the approval for two years, because they were playing political games too and they were being very cautious. They did not want to give an opposition member $6 million for a hospital.

The heat was finally on them because the hospital had to be expanded, so it increased from $6 million to $8 million and. lo and behold, they had to try to weasel out of it by giving credit to the Liberal candidate. I will tell members, that was a pretty shoddy business. I was disappointed in the Minister of Health and I told her so the next day. “Well,” she said, “we would have told you about the announcement but, unfortunately, you just did not get it in time.” That is not good enough.

I heard all the Liberal oldtimers year after year when they were on this side complain about the same thing, and I said to myself as I sat in the back bench, way over there: “If I were ever in cabinet, I would not pull a sleazy trick like that. I would make sure that I would include the member, no matter who it was.” You would think that, after all those years of complaining, they would have learned. But not now. Now that they are in power, as the member for Oshawa has said, it is a different ball game and they are just going the same old traditional political route that many political parties have taken when they have had large majority governments.

Interestingly enough, we could centre in on plaques. My good friend and colleague the member for Wellington was concerned about plaques. When I saw the new plaque, I shook my head. Hershell maybe could convince me otherwise, but I will tell members, it looks like a great Liberal plot. Have members seen the new plaques? First of all, they do not even stand up the right way. When you put the Premier’s letter in and you try to stand it up, the Premier’s letter is on its side; you cannot even read it anyway. Who designed the thing? We get awfully suspicious with the flowing letters and everything from Queen’s Park and “Yours truly, the Premier of Ontario.” You can slip your card in the other envelope, but when you turn it backwards, of course, the member’s card does not show up. I have been told, I say to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), that there have been one or two members who slipped the Premier’s letter out and typed in their own name and underlined it to make sure that those people having the celebration knew at least who the local member was.

How about the great money grab that has taken place under the budget, and where is it being spent? It is not being spent in courts in Durham: “Court Delays Tragic Result of Underfunding, Local Lawyers in Durham Tell Nixon.” We still have the problem there. The member for Oshawa will tell members that we have got a delay of up to a year and a half to two years in setting trial dates, and it does not look any better.

How about this one, which was brought up in the House in terms of what is taking place with hospitals? I mentioned Port Perry. We had in the Oshawa Times: “Turned Away by Metro Hospital, Bowmanville Woman Has to Fly to Kingston to Have Her Triplets.” In today’s day and age, with helicopters and the access that we have to the finest hospitals in the world --

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: Oh, no; I have to get to the garbage problem yet, and then I will call time.

Even I was surprised, I who have seen a lot of things around here, to think they had to fly her to Kingston to have the baby. Boy!

Let’s get to it: the garbage issue. This is going to be interesting, I say to the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner), because, of course, this is going to affect her or me. It might affect the member for Durham Centre. We will refresh all their memories. Actually, I want to change speed here for a moment. I want to talk about the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. I will finish off with the garbage.

The Ganaraska conservation authority owns 10,000 acres of land in my constituency of Durham East and that of the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett). Strangely enough, the authority, under F. G. Houston, the chairperson, has come forward with a great policy that it is going to open up the forest to all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes.

I made a presentation to the authority about two months ago. I said to them: “That is all very well and good, but you are moving too fast. Why do you not strike a policy first? Why do you not send a letter to me? I will approach the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). We will strike a consultation committee. We will look around Ontario, Canada, North America and the United States to see what other conservation authorities have done about having all-terrain vehicles in their forests.”

Do members know what? They said, “No, we are going to go marching merrily on our way with these all-terrain vehicles in the forest.” I respect that opinion. I made my pitch. I did not say I was against the vehicles or for them. I said, “You and the authority are moving too fast.”

Lo and behold, now we do have a particular problem, which points out the lack of policy and direction for the authority. Now, with the opening up of the forest, we have people going in there and setting large bonfires. I will say up front, strangely enough, that now that I have moved, I am a neighbour of the forest. I have not particularly singled out the motorbikes, because I wanted to be neutral, but now this is a policy issue that affects all the people in my riding of Durham East and in the riding of Northumberland. They are setting large bonfires in the forest on weekends, throwing tires on these fires and having a great time. That is all well and good, but what about the possibility of forest fires?

I phoned the police department because I had a meeting of angry constituents a week ago Saturday. The police came out right away. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will appreciate this, because I have here under Ganaraska -- here it is; I will bring it up in a minute -- the police came out and said: “No, it is not our authority. We cannot do anything about the fires in the forest.”

That is fine. So I phoned up the district manager in the Ministry of Natural Resources. He got back to me a week later and said: “Actually, it is not my authority, either. I cannot do anything about the bonfires in the forest. You really have to go to the Ganaraska authority.”

I have already contacted the Ganaraska authority, and it has told me that it has no policy about how to light fires in the forest. They have no fire equipment to combat forest fires, and they rely for everything on the local municipality. I am telling the members that if this is the kind of policy and direction the authority has with regard to fires being set in the forest, it is very dismal.

We are going to see repercussions about the policy they have instituted with regard to all-terrain vehicles in the forest. I am going to send a copy of this Hansard to each and every member of the authority and say: “It is about time you get your act together. I went to bat for you people on the authority.” They complained about channelization for the Ganaraska River through the town of Port Hope. I went down there. Russell Rowe was then the Speaker and the member. I supported him. We had to do away with some funding for my own riding for Ganaraska, but it was important to fix up the town of Port Hope and stop the flooding.

Then F. G. Houston, the chairman, came to me about four or five years ago. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) was then the Minister of Natural Resources. He said: “We really need a new building. We have to get all our staff together. It is important to run the forest so that we can administer it properly.” I said: “That seems reasonable to me. Let’s get a building.” The building was not even going to be in my riding. It is in the riding of the member for Northumberland, right in Port Hope, right off Highway 401. It is a nice fancy building. All the staff can be in there. They have all the conservation authority meetings there.

By the way, the Ministry of Natural Resources has told me that hardly any of the authority members even tour through the forest so that they can make an objective opinion in terms of what is taking place in there.

They got their building. Terrific. Now I have come to them and said: “Listen folks, why do you not ask for some money to do a proper study in the forest so that you can get your act together? If you are going to have all-terrain vehicles, maybe they are going to have to be in one section and you will have to have the horse riders in another section and people who are cross-country skiing or out for a walk will be in another section.” No, not for them. They would not listen to me one iota after they came begging to me twice.

I have a long memory and I say to that authority, as the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and Harry Worton used to say over here when the Tories were in power, “It is a long road that has no curves.” I say the same thing to them. There will come a time indeed when there will be something else that is taking place, and they are going to need the assistance of myself in some manner. I am going to say to them, “I don’t remember the co-operation you gave me when I suggested having a consultative process for the forest.”

1730

The last topic -- I have been getting the wave here, the hook, from the whip of the Liberal Party -- is garbage. Let me say it is going to be an interesting topic for all of us across Ontario. Metro Toronto: the Brock West landfill site is filling up and to my colleague, the Liberal member for Durham West, rapidly, within a year and a half or two years, Metro is casting its eyes about Ontario as to where it is going to put the garbage.

Now, strangely enough, Metro has sort of looked at three sites in my riding of Durham East, two along Lake Ontario, if members can believe it; one beside the Darlington Provincial Park. Wait till I get after the Minister of Natural Resources if he is going to approve the placement of a large landfill site beside a provincial park, not to mention on Lake Ontario.

Holy smokes, that reminds me of the time they had, out of the state of New York, a barge going up and down the intercoastal waterway trying to get rid of the garbage. Now we are going to be placing it on the shores of Lake Ontario. I suppose the next step is putting it on a barge and going up and down the north shore of Lake Ontario trying to decide what to do with it.

Not to mention, I say to the member for Oshawa, that it should come close to his home, that indeed, General Motors of Canada’s main headquarters is going to be right beside the garbage, a landfill site. It is going to be great to have the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Ontario -- I have a nice clipping from him, when he clandestinely visited General Motors of Canada and avoided a picket line. It is going to be interesting to have him come to the opening of the General Motors of Canada site with the landfill site next door and all the sea-gulls flapping their wings around. I have a sneaking suspicion it is not going to go beside General Motors of Canada’s head office.

There is another site along Lake Ontario at the Bennett Sideroad. It boggles the imagination to think that they would even consider putting a landfill site on the shores of Lake Ontario.

A third site that some people have suggested is at present a small dump site in the Newcastle area. There is an outfit called Laidlaw Waste Systems which owns it and it is trying, through the environmental process, to expand the site. There is a group of concerned people gathered together to try to stop the site. The interesting thing about the group of concerned people is that they have been approached by another group called PACT, Pickering-Ajax Committee Against Trash. Am I close?

Mrs. Stoner: Pickering-Ajax Citizens Together.

Mr. Cureatz: Pickering-Ajax Citizens Together. They have approached the Clarke-Newcastle group and said, “You know, why don’t you give us support to be against this dump?” I say to the member for Durham West that I am a little suspicious, because I have a funny feeling that Metro wants the dump in Durham West, somewhere in Pickering or North Pickering. They do not want to be lugging it all the way down to Newcastle, not to mention the fact that Metro has already gone to Kingston township looking for a landfill site down there. It is my understanding it was such a sweetheart deal for the township that it almost took it, but the township council did not want to take the flak of having garbage from Metro going all the way out to Kingston.

Well, I am a little suspicious that the PACT organization is trying to broaden the net to see if it can indeed convince Metro that there are other sites besides Pickering to be looking at. “Why don’t you look out to Newcastle? See, there’s another group out there. There’re other areas across the region of Durham.” I say to the member for Durham West that we are going to be at some interesting loggerheads in terms of Metro looking for the landfill site, and I do not know if I am going to be too sympathetic in terms of the organization out in her riding who are saying to Metro, “Why don’t you look further east?” If they are looking east, I am going to be saying: “Well, Metro, you really want it in Pickering. You want it nice and close, don’t you, Metro?”

We have heard about the Minister of the Environment. He gets up and boy, he can talk a line. He reminds me of Jimmy Auld in the old days. You could not nail jelly to the wall, the way Jimmy spoke. Another Jimmy, Jim Bradley, has the same kind of method. I have great respect for the Minister of the Environment. Oh, he was nasty when he was in the front bench and the second bench and the third bench. Members should have heard him give the devil to Bill Davis over the Challenger jet, day in and day out. We all got sick of it, but I will say he was a tough opposition member.

But you know what? He is talking a good line here, he really is, but I do not see any formative policy yet. I am saying that the Liberal administration, the minister, should take some initiative in terms of landfill sites. We had the liquid-waste disposal problem, and it might have been that the former member for Lincoln, the Conservative member, took the repercussions of having the plant down in his riding. He might have lost the riding to our future Minister of Agriculture and Food here. Who is to say? But it is going to be up to the Ontario government to take a look at the landfill-site problem and to see what other people are doing with the initiatives.

I have some documentation from other authorities, organizations and companies that have indicated the landfill site can be looked at seriously by reducing the volume of material that is going into the site.

There is a company from Guelph. At the moment, I cannot put my hands on what some of its proposals are. I do have it right here. I will give them the plug because they approached me when they saw I had some concerns about landfill sites; it is Delegated Marketing Corp. They are out of west Downsview, but I think the organization is out of Guelph. They are talking about reducing the amount of volume to landfill sites by a quarter to maybe a 10th. I have not heard a thing from the Minister of the Environment about that aspect.

Do members think we are going to have problems with landfill sites? We sure are because, strangely enough, I have been speaking to another organization. I am getting all kinds of interesting calls about landfill sites -- this will be interesting -- from the area of Prince Edward-Lennox. There is an organization down there that has been very concerned about a dump of 40 acres that was owned by the Sutcliffe family who got a rezoning, and now it is owned by Tricil or Trimac and C-l-L. It is in lot 2, concession 4, Richmond township. It is presently 40 acres with a potential of 350 acres; they are not sure it will be developed to that degree. The land will be dug down 25 feet deep, with five huge hills.

The dump was supposed to cover the four counties in the area. Apparently, it is now supposed to take garbage from across the province. There have been concerns. After every day has gone by with the filling up of garbage, there is supposed to be six inches of dirt spread over the garbage. That has not always necessarily been done. There has been an infestation of rats and seagulls.

A farmer three miles away had all his tomatoes eaten by the seagulls because they ran out of food at the garbage dump. Another constituent, by the name of George McKnight, who is a mile away, has had to set out rat poison for the rats.

According to my contact, the Ministry of the Environment said there was no rat infestation of a home beside the dump. There was not an environmental assessment hearing, but sort of a community hearing about the dump. The lady who was in the home went back and indicated the rats had chewed through the kitchen cupboards and had strewn the tea towels out on the front lawn. The Ministry of the Environment came back and said, “By golly, you know, you’re right; there are rats.”

I will tell you, friends across Ontario, we are not finished with the landfill site problem.

I have great admiration for my friend and colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). He has been involved in politics at the municipal level for a great long time. He has the same kind of concerns. I can say to him maybe he should be one of the four or five people of that Liberal committee to start putting some pressure on the Minister of the Environment so that we could have a collective policy in terms of landfill sites.

Well, lo and behold, I know I have spoken too long. There are some other great issues that I would have loved the opportunity of expressing my thoughts and concerns on, but with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we thank you very much.

Mr. Tatham: It is a privilege to speak to this assembly. I want to talk about three things: courage, compassion and common sense. These are the ideals exemplified in the words and actions of our Treasurer.

We all know the demands for funds are great. We all want quality health care, quality education facilities, affordable housing and attention to the environment. We all want all those things that make living in Ontario so special.

I believe our friend the Treasurer has endeavoured to balance the demand for service with the ability to pay for this. This is a courageous, compassionate and sensible budget.

These traits could also be used to describe the good people of Oxford county. It is my privilege to represent the citizens of the riding of Oxford. I would like to tell the members about this special corner of good Ontario life and acquaint the members with its citizens’ courage, compassion and diligence.

For many years, from 1872 to 1896, Oxford North was represented by Sir Oliver Mowat, the Premier of Ontario. Andrew Pattullo, the first president of the Ontario Good Roads Association, succeeded Sir Oliver Mowat as the representative from Oxford North.

1740

I want to tell members about an interesting election that took place on June 29, 1914, when Victor Sinclair was elected the member for Oxford South by a one-vote majority. Elections like that prove the old adage that every vote counts.

The Oxford riding includes seven of our eight municipalities in the county of Oxford. The eighth municipality, Tillsonburg, is capably represented by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller). Our riding is in the Great Lakes basin and the Grand Trunk corridor, the main line of Canadian National Railways and the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Highways 401, 403 and 2 are part of the Oxford scene. Hydro transmission lines, gas lines and oil pipelines traverse our riding.

Perhaps members will, for a few moments, let me take them around our county of Oxford.

Woodstock, with 27,000 people, the city beautiful, founded by Admiral Henry Vansittart in 1834, has great streetscapes and lovely old buildings. Probably one of the prettiest streets in Canada is Vansittart Avenue in Woodstock.

Canadian tradition is evident in the area’s heritage buildings and also in a rather special tribute to another important founder. In honour of the founder of our important dairy industry, we have a monument to a cow, unveiled August 4, 1937: Springbank’s Show Countess, world butterfat champion. Her owner, Tom Dent, hand-milked this cow four times a day for two years, three times a day thereafter, for the record. Tom was a former Deputy Speaker of the Legislature. He was followed in the House by a world-class Holstein breeder and judge, a good friend of mine, Gordon “Sparky” Innes.

You can see and taste Oxford county’s attributes. The Tavistock Cheese Co., now owned by McCain’s, sells all the cheese it can make. It takes 10 pounds of milk for one pound of cheese.

By the way, we are the dairy capital of Canada. We have over 31,000 dairy cows, and our black-and-white show is held Thursday night during Woodstock’s fair week and has visitors from across Ontario, Quebec and the northern United States.

We spread our wealth worldwide. Our western Ontario breeders’ unit has an excellent stable of bulls. Bull semen is collected, refrigerated and packaged to be shipped to 32 different countries of the world, thus providing good breeding to animals in countries that benefit from quality breeding.

Mr. Wildman: They want to spread the bull around.

Mr. Tatham: A little bull goes a long way.

There are other monuments that reflect the nature of industry in resource-rich Oxford. The next time members look at the CN tower, they should recognize the fact that 75 per cent of the cement came from the Canada Cement plant in Oxford. This cement plant has shipped over 13 million tonnes of cement in the last 30 years.

The cement and lime industry is an energy-intensive business. At the present time, Canada Cement spends over $3.5 million annually on energy. Canada Cement has a continuing program to reduce its energy costs. A dry plant consumes approximately 3,000 megajoules per tonne, and wet plants consume approximately 5,000 megajoules per tonne. Canada Cement is a wet plant. At the present time, it is converting, where possible, from manual controls to multi-functional programmable controls that will start up sequentially. It also has a control system in its laboratory, because in the final analysis the lab test must be up to scratch to allow the cement to be shipped.

Another primary industry, in the township of Zorra, is the lime industry. The steel companies in Hamilton and Nanticoke get their high-calcium lime products from the valley area. The fuel bill annually for one of Oxford’s lime plants is in excess of $10 million. We have three lime plants and two cement plants in the Beachville area. There is a 100-foot face of 98 per cent pure calcium carbonate -- that is limestone -- in the steel-company quarry. Beachville is called the lime capital of Canada.

I could go on and tell members about the huge General Motors-Suzuki plant in Ingersoll. That is over a $500-million investment and it is expected they will hire 2,000 employees and manufacture 200,000 units a year.

I could go on. I would like to tell members about Charlie Shelton in southwest Oxford who won the Oxford County landsaver award. Fifty years ago, there were many 100-acre farms and some 50-acre farms. Today, we have a number of farmers operating from 200 to 1,000 acres of land. Charlie Shelton operates 1,000 acres of land, and he has one 200-acre field of rolling land. Up to 12 years ago he was losing productive topsoil off his field. Charlie changed his methods of soil management, and today he is one of Canada’s leading soil conservationists.

Our natural wealth is not without its challenges and difficulties. We have some of the best land in Canada, enough moisture, frost-free days and excellent farmers. We produce food, but we also produce soil erosion. A position statement of the Ontario chapter of the Soil Conservation Society of America in July 1983, page 9, said, “When soil erosion costs were calculated on the basis of losses per row of crop-land hectare, the counties of Brant, Oxford, Elgin, Middlesex and Waterloo had the highest erosion damages, with values ranging from $45 to $63 per row of crop-land hectare.”

Our response has been based on good old common sense. It has taken some courage of our convictions and compassion for our precious environment. We call our response the land stewardship program. It just makes good sense. Its purpose is to encourage the adoption of proper approaches to land stewardship which will improve and protect soil and water resources.

The program consists of four sections: soil structure, erosion control structure, conservation equipment and conservation technology. Other items dear to my heart are the reforestation of fragile lands, encouraging long-term commitment to agriforestry, diversifying crop production, shelter belts, windbreaks and planting under five acres of intercropping, which are good for the land.

The Ontario government has been very supportive of the agricultural community. Budgetary spending by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will reach $567 million, an increase of 86 per cent since 1984-1985. For 1988-89 the government has allocated an additional $50 million to stabilization programs for a number of commodities currently covered by separate federal and provincial arrangements.

Over the next two years, tripartite programs will be put in Ontario, with the exception of what is covered by formal marketing arrangements. First-year funding will also be provided for two government commitments, the Ontario Farm-Start program, which provides cash grants to assist farmers entering the industry, and Food Systems 2002, designed to assist farmers in reducing the use of pesticides by 50 per cent over the next 15 years.

We have hard-working, industrious people living in our county, but we have to keep up with technology and we have to do a better job. We must pay attention to the new innovations in science. The increase in competition is based, in part, on deregulation and globalization. We must sharpen our decision-making skills and take difficult and sometimes painful actions to broaden our approaches to compete effectively.

Again, the government has been responsive to this need. I think the Premier’s Council, with a mandate to steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation, makes sense. We have to come of age.

Several years ago, an American statistician, Dr. Edward Deming, after a tour of Japanese manufacturing facilities, commented that our idea of quality control in North America is like burning toast and scraping it. That is changing. Ontario is rising to the challenges of competitive forces. The people of Oxford are doing their bit to respond effectively.

I would like to invite the members to come to Oxford to see high tech working for nine municipalities that are working together. We have an investment of over $700,000 in hardware, software and training for land-related information systems. Two weeks ago we had people here from Qatar, in the Persian Gulf.

As past warden of Oxford county for three years, and with other wardens before me, I watched our county population of 85,000 spend over $2 million in 11 years before we achieved a safe landfill site. I remember in March 1983 writing the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Claude Bennett, suggesting that we had to find a pass through the environmental mountains to the shore of reason and the sea of results. Of course, if we all looked into a mirror like Pogo, “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.”

Our Treasurer had to look at the needs and demands of today as well as the requirements that will lead to opportunities for Ontario’s future. Courage, compassion and common sense are admirable ideals that can be difficult to accept when they are applied to a very necessary plan of action.

I believe the good people of Oxford want Ontario’s competitive position strengthened through investments in manufacturing and research and development. The good people of Ontario, I believe, accept and applaud the government’s priorities for quality health care, excellence in education, more affordable housing and economic assistance for those in need.

The budget has to ensure we can pay for today’s services and have money for tomorrow’s needs. There has to be a balance of revenue and expenditures. If I have learned anything during my brief time at Queen’s Park it is that, as Bismarck said way back in the second half of the 19th century, politics is the constant pursuit of the attainable, of the possible.

For the most part, the people of Oxford agree with me that politics is a worthwhile process. It is a rational process in the same way that it is a rational person who decides where to strike a balance between what is desirable and what can be done. As far as I am concerned, that, in a nutshell, defines life at Queen’s Park: a balance of what is desired and what can be done.

Mr. Wildman: Did you say it was rational around here?

Mr. Tatham: I want to talk about that balance. We all strive for balance in our lives. For those who attain it, there is the compliment that he or she is a well balanced person. Farmers and gardeners know all about the balance of nature. I was reading through some material developed by a college of agriculture down in Kentucky, and the word that keeps appearing was “balance.” One of the pamphlets was on stress management for farmers. The recommendations are applicable to all of us.

1. Eat balanced meals.

2. Think positive thoughts.

3. Balance your work and your play.

The balance of nature is perhaps even more fragile than the balance in human nature. The people of Oxford county have grown up understanding the fragility of that balance. The Treasurer of Ontario turned a tough balancing act into a courageous, compassionate course of action. It took vision to accomplish the task. Others before him have shared the task.

I think of the words of vision eloquently voiced many years ago by Chief Seattle for whom the beautiful city was named. He expressed it this way: “Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to himself. We must care. We must not steal from our children. We build our community with dreams, dreams for our children and those yet to be, a world with respect for one another and a civility blessed by reason.”

This budget reflects the task of vision, the need for a balance and this budget works towards that goal.

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

Mr. Speaker: Is there some information for the members on House business for next week?

Mr. Offer: We are a well-oiled machine.

Mr. Breaugh: You are a well-oiled oil, that is what you are.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Could I have a little order, Mr. Speaker? I have never been acting House leader before.

Mr. Speaker: Try it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 9, we will continue the debate on the budget motion. On Tuesday, May 10, and Wednesday, May 11, we will consider, as time permits, second reading of the following legislation: Bill 125, trustee representation; Bill 116, northern heritage fund; and Bill 108, rental housing.

On Thursday, May 12, in the morning, we will deal with private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash). In the afternoon we will consider government notice of motion 10, followed by the supply bill to be introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

May 5, 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

“A WORLD-CLASS EMPIRE”

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CITY OF WELLAND

EASTERN ONTARIO

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

TABLING OF INFORMATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

ANNIVERSARY OF THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE

AQUACULTURE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AQUACULTURE

FLOODING

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TREE PLANTING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL FUNDING

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ZOO LICENSING ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE