Hansard Transcript 1988-May-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, in order to enhance the capacity of Ontario’s young people to appropriate their cultural past, to cope with questions of meaning and values and to understand and respond to issues of a global society and an increasingly pluralist Ontario, the government of Ontario should be encouraged to develop and promote for Ontario schools a multigrade, multifaith religious education curriculum similar to that in place in a great many publicly supported schools in Great Britain, to be taught by certified teachers with appropriate training; and this House suggests that in preparation for such an undertaking, the government should establish a religious advisory council and initiate at an early date a few pilot projects in typical board settings in co-operation with the local community involved.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation, any amount of which he may reserve for the windup.

Mr. Allen: Not being able to predict exactly how much time I will take in the introduction, I will attempt to reserve a few minutes for response at the end of the list.

Religious education in Ontario today is unfortunately out of harmony with the nature of Ontario’s contemporary society, having become a very multicultural, multifaith place. It is unfortunate that, taken together with section 235 of the Education Act, which charges teachers with promoting, enhancing and inculcating Judaeo-Christian values, and with the elements of regulation 262, which relate to opening exercises, religious education is tilted in a single-faith fashion and, therefore, I believe, is inherently exclusionary and unfortunately does not open up for Ontario’s young people the full riches of their community, nor can all of them find an appropriate place within the structure of religious education as it is offered in Ontario schools today.

As I thought my way through what I would say this morning, I was tempted to jot some of it down on paper. My written speeches are never great, so I often simply try to speak to notes, but I did have some written remarks about the significance of religion and education that I want to take directly from my notes.

It is incomprehensible that any education at any level that pretends to comprehensiveness and pretends to teach the whole child should ignore or minimize religion. A cursory glance at the world around us indicates the prevalence and persistence of religion. A publicity sheet for a recent book, for example, declares:

“With massive forces lining up on opposite sides of the abortion debate in Canada, eastern bloc communism struggling with the questions of a Polish Pope and Soviet Jewry, Anglican bishops confronting apartheid in South Africa and zealous fundamentalism boiling in the Middle East, the inexplicable relationship between religion and politics becomes an unavoidable altercation which must be confronted and resolved.”

True, the issues named often exhibit religious pathology. Religion can get sick, like anything else, but religion, as the root of the word implies, also binds societies and civilizations together. It heightens awareness and lends dignity to life. Our literature, art and architecture are so full of it that instructors in our schools and universities have to resort to short courses in theology to interpret them. From the youngest child’s “Twinkle, twinkle, little star” and the most elegant statements of science arise questions that demand a religious response.

Religion is normally the foundation of the values that we profess, compromise them as we may; it lies at the root of the sense of authority that pervades our political system, corrupt it as we may. To deny systematic attention to religion in our schools, I submit, is to truncate religion, promote alienation of students and young people and give way to the reign of commercial and utilitarian values.

I submit that unless in our schools and in our religious education system, as we develop it, we are able to respond positively, we will find, on the one hand, either that children will respond in that context with intelligence and sympathy to the new Ontario and to the world around them, or they will respond either with unfortunate indifference or, even worse, with ignorance and hostility to the disadvantage of us all.

Our present situation in the province is a very contradictory one with respect to religious instruction. On the one hand, there is a substantial retreat from religious education in the schools. I think that is fairly evident if one looks at the survey the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association undertook recently, with 46 boards responding to its inquiries.

They discovered that at the elementary level religious education was in a parlous state at best. Only a few boards have specific policies. Only one third of the schools in these boards had classes in religious education. Discretion is largely left to the local school and generally with the principal. Only eight boards control the curriculum to any degree. Usually, it is set by school staff, sometimes in consultation with local ministerial associations. More frequently, the program is taught by lay persons or clergy rather than by teachers, although the specific and preferred instruction in the regulations is that teachers should do that. Most of the boards have allotted only half the regulation time to teaching religious matters and all of them have allowed exemptions.

1010

At the secondary level, the situation is even more serious. Notwithstanding most people’s views that religious studies are easier to handle at the secondary school level, the situation is dramatically worse. For example, only three reporting boards have a religious education policy for secondary schools. Only 10 of them offer a credit course in religious education. Eight of those are in comparative religion and world religions. In addition, a number have tried moral values programs in the place of religious education.

At the same time as there is that retreat from religious education in the schools, there is an apparently increasing tendency for the practice of religious education and its teaching to fall into the hands of the more sectarian members of our religious community. Thus, we have had the recent court cases that have focused upon instances where children have felt so tyrannized by the instruction, so traumatized that they have had serious, recurring nightmares which have been extremely disturbing to them. That is not the case in just the one court case in question, but there are other reports of that as well.

I submit that religious education in a compulsory public school system cannot and never should be of an indoctrinating kind. It should not generate the kinds of pressures that result in those kinds of traumas for children. It cannot be, in principle at least, exclusionary. It ought at all points to be inclusive. It must at all points respond to the reality of the community from which children come. When that community is as multifaith and as multicultural as Ontario society now is, that program of study cannot and must not bed down on a single-faith tradition. To do so is to shortchange our children and to undermine in important ways the quality of their education.

In response to this situation, there are three positions that have been taken. One is that religious education is of necessity indoctrinating, inculcating, faith-developing and nurturing; therefore it should be practised, and can only be practised, in the way in which it is present in the schools now. Those who take that position defend that position very strongly. They tend to be of the more sectarian wing of religion in Ontario, although I submit that where multifaith religious education programs have been attempted, as they have in Great Britain, it has often been possible to incorporate those groups in an understanding way within the system developed.

On the other hand, there are those who say exactly the same thing but oppose religious education. For example, that tends to be the position of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and it tends to be the position of the Jewish community in Ontario, although they tilt their arguments a little bit in one direction and another on that subject. But there are those who simply say that is the only way you can approach religious education and, therefore, it must go.

What I am proposing to this House today is that there is a third, nonindoctrinating, nondominating, multifaith approach to religious instruction that is acceptable, inclusive and enriching for both students and our society.

We have to recognize that Ontario today is not the Ontario of Egerton Ryerson’s day. We have to recognize that it is not even the Ontario of a generation or two ago. Religious instruction in Ontario has gone through three broad phases, which I will not attempt to delineate since there is not time today. In some respects, that has broadened. At the same time, I think one would have to say that what I propose is to respond to the new reality of Ontario in something of the same way that Egerton Ryerson responded to the multiplicity of sectarian groups of his day.

Egerton Ryerson attempted to build a public school system that transcended the sectarian differences of his time and got the broad support of the community for a broad approach to Christian elementals, a practical Christian or religious approach to life that would be broadly fielded in that school system. He also wrote: “To teach a child the dogmas and spirit of a sect before he is taught the essential principles of religion and morality is to invert the pyramid.”

What I am saying today is that we have come in a new way to a situation similar to that which Egerton Ryerson confronted in his day, namely, we have that multiplicity of beliefs and multiplicity of faith communities in our midst and somehow we have to reach out to them all in the best spirit of the religious traditions that are part of this province. In doing that, we must, I think, at the very least explore and develop a religious education program and curriculum which is essentially multifaith and inclusive in its character. We cannot solve the problem by walking away from it. We will shortchange our children and our province if we do.

The voices of concern that have arisen around this question do not come simply from those new arrivals in the different faith communities. One would have to point out that it is almost 20 years since the Ecumenical Study Commission on Public Education, representing the major Protestant and the Catholic churches of this province, asked the Ministry of Education to undertake something of the kind of thing I am proposing today, and they have repeated that request over the years with no substantial response whatever.

One would have to note that the Keiller MacKay committee report of 1969 proposed a broadening approach to this subject and emphasized that religious education in the schools was not to be indoctrinating, and yet there was no immediate response to that document either.

When we came to the Davis announcement of separate school funding, it was amazing to see that at that time an issue that should have been raised in the context of the completion of separate school funding, namely, the whole question of religious education in public schools, was nowhere mentioned in the comprehensive response Mr. Davis proposed at that time, Mr. Davis preferring to include the question of the funding of private schools. That was quite astonishing.

When my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and I, and indeed the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) and others, were part of the Bill 30 hearings, we heard Protestant parents who came from long-standing families in this community coming before us time and time again and saying: “The reason we are principally unhappy with what is happening is that we see one faith community having funding for programs of religious education in the context of its school system, which is now expanded and completed, but we are not getting it in ours. Nobody is responding to our needs.”

They felt very grieved about that. They did not want to go back to the old structure or even continue the present or existing structures of religious education. They agreed almost unanimously. I do not recall anyone dissenting from the notion that the new approaches to religious instruction in the schools must be on a multifaith inclusionary basis. They were happy with that. They just wanted their children to have that kind of education in the context of their schooling.

At the same time, directors of education told us they had been trying for a dozen years to get the ministry to respond on this question, that they had time and time again proposed that something like what the ecumenical study commission had proposed was what they felt had to happen in Ontario. A few of them took the steps of developing multifaith readings for their schools, but the whole question of response from the ministry was very laid back.

At last something is happening. Anyone who has perused the clippings in this field in the last year will realize that board of education after board of education has been discussing the question. They have been pressed in some measure by a statement from the Anglican Church of Canada in which the members of that church said: “If we cannot get religious education in the schools, we may well have to look at our own schools; we may have to develop our own independent religious schools. We would prefer to stay with the public school system, but we would like the minister to move on this question of multifaith religious education.”

1020

Boards such as the Peterborough County Board of Education picked that up and circulated other boards. Other boards began discussing it. The Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association and the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario had their curriculum committees look at the question and circulate and survey their boards, so at last there is a significant response coming in from the field. I would have to say that most of it moves in the direction I am suggesting and I think there is a new consensus being formed.

May I respond briefly to two or three of the issues that are raised in this context, however.

First, I think one must insist it has been possible, certainly at our universities, to move in the last generation from church-based theology to secular studies in religion. We have had countless numbers of Canadian young people go through those programs. They understand what it means to instruct in a religious education context that is not judgemental about the truth, or otherwise, of given religious systems. We have the capacity to respond and therefore it seems to me we must.

Second, does multifaith instruction leave Christianity behind? Well, of course not. How could it? Christianity and the Jewish community in our province are part of the historic dimension of our own tradition, so they have to be considered, they have to be a substantial part and parcel of all that.

On the question of church and state that many people are hung up on, the separation of church and state was meant to preclude the domination of church by state or state by church. It was never intended as a doctrine, in my view, to argue that publicly funded institutions should never have anything to do with religion in the broad sense of the term. Quite the contrary, it was precisely because religion was so important that this mutual domination was not to take place, but that otherwise the community through its public agencies had every right to look at an interest in and the development of religious sensibilities.

I hasten to say that must include the examination, not only of belief but of unbelief, because nonbelief and the rejection of belief is part and parcel of the whole issue.

Members will see my proposal is very modest in that it only proposes the setting up of a multifaith council to advise the minister and some pilot projects. I hope that will be taken by the government as an indication that we want it to get moving. I hope other members will stand with me and move them in the same direction.

Mr. Jackson: I rise to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton West with great conviction. I am delighted and honoured to stand and support him this morning.

It was almost three years ago that my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) presented a concept similar to this resolution, a concept of incorporating into the school curriculum a multifaith religious study program with an emphasis on values education. The plan was very similar to the content of this morning’s resolution by the member for Hamilton West.

The member at the time was running for the leadership of our party and it is fair to say that during that period of time, the late summer and fall of 1985, the entire province was caught up in the tension and emotion surrounding the Bill 30 debate. We wanted to incorporate into the school curriculum a program which would allow students to look upon religion in a more positive way, to look upon it not as something that divides, but as something that promotes common values among people, no matter what their creed.

I remember that during the public hearings on Bill 30, which I had the privilege of participating in for over a year, at that time many families and educators expressed support for the main elements of this resolution. I remember that delegates from across the province to our leadership convention were also very supportive of the ideas set out in this resolution. They saw a clearly defined need for a curriculum which would combine Ontario’s tolerance and multicultural diversity with an understanding of religions around the globe. I venture to say this same favourable response can be found not only among those people, but throughout the public here in Ontario.

Before explaining why I will vote for this motion, I want to remind members that it is important to understand exactly what the substance of this resolution is all about. The resolution uses the phrase “religious education,” but this should not be a source of confusion. We are not talking about indoctrination. The motion will not force schools to instruct students in the tenets of any particular faith. Religious education will not teach students about God or even whether or not He exists. Students will remain free to keep and practise their own faith, whatever it may be. Those who think otherwise simply do not understand this resolution.

The resolution clearly states that the curriculum will be multifaith. All creeds will be studied and examined. Students will not be taught that one church teaching is right and another is necessarily wrong. Students will not be told what to believe; rather, they will be told about the beliefs of others around them.

This bears repeating: the difference between religious studies and theology is like the distinction between political science and ideological indoctrination. Students of political science examine the histories, tenets and applications of all philosophies, but they are not coerced into accepting any particular one. In the process, students gain a greater understanding of the world around them.

Religious education will likewise expose our students to a variety of perspectives, building within our schools a climate of tolerance, mutual respect, and of course, understanding. As the member for Hamilton West has pointed out, a comparative religious program will offer benefits over and above the academic learning in and of itself. For one thing, children will learn that in spite of religious differences, there exist values and concepts common to all of us. They will come to realize that charity, human dignity, peace and compassion transcend sectarian barriers.

In their studies, students will gain a sense of the ethical and moral values or moral norms which govern the conduct of human beings everywhere. Moreover, in this multicultural society, it is imperative that our children grow to understand the history and content of the religious beliefs and practices of their peers.

As I think of my own daughter, who is growing up in a diverse and ever changing society, I am even more convinced of the merits of this motion. When my daughter, Amy, enters school I want her to understand and respect the fact that some of her friends may observe special deities or proudly wear the symbols of their own faith. When some of her classmates cannot come out to play because they observe a different holiday or a different day of worship, I want her to be accepting of and sensitive to those practices.

In the same way, I would hope that programs like this would make my daughter not embarrassed but proud of those religious customs which set even our own family apart, like the fact that between her two grandmothers she celebrates Christmas on two separate days, two weeks apart.

Does this resolution violate the concepts of separate church and state? Not at all. Religious beliefs exist as a matter of fact and therefore should quite properly be the subject of academic study.

Does it violate the charter? According to a recent decision of the Ontario Divisional Court, it does not. On March 28 of this year, the court upheld regulation 262 under the Education Act which allows for religious education, provided that issues of a controversial or sectarian nature are avoided. All three judges, including the one dissenter, agreed that while it is unconstitutional to impose on students a particular religious view, it is certainly constitutional to expose them to all creeds and faiths.

The enabling legislation is already in place. Section 50 of the Education Act allows religious instruction in the classroom and regulation 262, which I have just mentioned, establishes the appropriate procedures.

Unfortunately, this Liberal government has failed to enforce the provisions of the existing regulations. While only 12 school boards have been granted an exemption from the religious education requirement, these rules, for the main, remain ignored by Ontario high schools and are adhered to by just one in three elementary schools. The Liberal record on this issue has lacked a certain degree of action. Perhaps today’s resolution will spur the new Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to action.

Will members of all religions, organized and unorganized, be entitled to participate in the religious advisory council and to have their beliefs made part of the curriculum, as set out in this resolution? I respond that implementation of the resolution will have to be subject to the Religious Freedom Act.

1030

This proposal already has the endorsement of many church leaders, representing quite a number of denominations. Indeed, one of my own constituents from the great riding of Burlington South, Archbishop John Bothwell, the Anglican Metropolitan of Ontario, has been a prime mover behind the call by the Ecumenical Study Commission on Public Education for an interfaith religious program in the classroom. At our last meeting, Archbishop Bothwell presented me with materials, including a pamphlet provided by the Anglican Church, which sum up better than I can the need for such programs.

The pamphlet asks the question. “What should be the proper place of religious education in the public schools of Ontario?” The church document answers that question and goes on to explain the whole philosophy of this proposal: “In a pluralistic society, the social fabric will split unless students are exposed to each other’s beliefs and values. We believe that religious issues and values must be presented and explained objectively and sympathetically.” That just about sums it up.

Before concluding. I would like to quote from a letter dated April 29, 1987, sent by the then Minister of Education, now the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), to one of my constituents, J. J. Bud Hanna. The minister wrote about two competing principles at work in this debate. He said: “I agree with you that it is appropriate to foster respect for morality and religion. However, in our pluralistic society, we must take into consideration the wide spectrum of cultures, religions and races that make up our Canadian identity.”

I suggest to all members of the House that the two different objectives mentioned by the then minister, the teaching of religion and the respect of cultural diversity, are not incompatible. We can find a way to do justice to both. The resolution presents such a way. I am very proud to stand and support it not only as a legislator, but as having been a trustee for 10 years in Ontario at a point when, on one occasion when we looked at changing the objectives for the Halton Board of Education, we inserted a line for our students which said we hope to foster in a student the moral sensitivity necessary to contribute to society. I support the resolution.

Mr. McGuinty: I am delighted to speak in support of the resolution moved by the member for Hamilton West. I think it is a resolution relevant in the sense of being important and timely in a vital sort of way. It is important to note what this resolution proposes -- that is, a nonconfessional, multifaith curriculum for all grades -- and to state clearly what it does not propose. The aim is not to nurture children in a specific religion, which could be offensive in our pluralistic society.

It is not the purpose of this bill to introduce religious education, in the sense that the selection and interpretation of materials would be conditioned by any one religion, into the public school system. It is not the purpose of this resolution to detract from our public school system as secular, and this is as it should be. Secular public schools belong in a society like ours because the educational system should reflect the character and outlook of society. I do not take the word “secular” to be a dirty word. The sector of society with a secular outlook is entitled to have publicly supported secular schools, but many people in our province believe that our secular schools are failing in the area of religious studies, as they fail to impart religion as a body of information.

It was 20 years ago that the ecumenical study commission drew attention to this point. Other world religions have done so, directors of public schools have done so, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation has done so, many non-Catholic parents have done so. and during my 16 years as a public school trustee I saw recurring efforts on the part of parental groups to have this type of thing introduced into the schools.

The growth of alternative schools in Ontario, I think, reflects this need. I have no recent figures on alternative schools, but I know that a few years ago they numbered 350 with well over 50,000 students. They are increasing at the rate of 20 a year and a majority of them have been established to support this need. They cannot be dismissed with a respectful wave of the hand; they are simply and factually significant in number and size and quality. They are a long way from death through discouragement or indifference or the blight of obsolescence.

It is the purpose of this resolution to establish a program in our schools which will work to enhance the capacity of our students to appreciate our ethnic and cultural past, to cope with questions of meaning and value, to understand and respond to issues of a global society in an increasingly pluralist Ontario, and to develop an understanding of the experience, attitudes, beliefs and religious practices of mankind.

Education that pretends to be comprehensive cannot ignore religion. It will come into the school system in any event, either as prejudice or as informed sensitivity. Respect for what others believe should be an essential part of everyone’s education, for all of us in this global village share common concerns.

Traditionally, education has been thought of as a process of enculturation. a means whereby the values of the past have been transmitted to the present and the future. It is a means whereby the older generation protects itself from the younger. In a pluralist society, this poses real problems for the public school with regard to religion, for the public school must serve children who come from families divided into hundreds of religious and antireligious bodies. This is pluralism with a vengeance. This is a fact and that fact has implications.

With students and teachers of diverse convictions, public schools must attempt a so-called neutrality on the great issues of life as far as the teaching of religion goes. It must operate within limited horizons, but this program would extend those horizons in a legitimate way, and the something of value that this program would impart is of great value to our society. There are ways in which the fortunes of a free society are intimately linked to the fact of a morally informed, sensitive citizenry with information and sensitivity of the kind this program would impart.

Some children may find support of faith through religious education in the school, as this program would supplement what they bring from their synagogue or their temple, their mosque or their church or their chapel. But the subject is also concerned with developing sensitivity and a sound knowledge, understanding and awareness of all religions, and asking basic questions which we all must face. Who am I? What does it mean to be human? What are my relations to man, to nature, to God, to gods? The influence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the other great world traditions, in so far as they pose answers to these questions, would surely be something of value to our young people.

A spinoff effect of the program would be to develop values and standards, which are more than mere habits, that go down below the soil of custom into the rock of clear conviction and are founded on the philosophy of life.

The liberal state depends upon the morality of its people. The state cannot create this morality, it has to take it for granted; and the time when we can live off moral capital seems to be past. This is primarily a function of the church and the home, but the state that is not cognizant of this fact may very well deprive itself of the kind of citizens it needs for survival.

I think the added dimension this program would bring would satisfy an important need, a need I saw in my 31 years as a university teacher. Youth are frustrated because modern life is not responding to their longings for an understanding of the place of religion in our world. Bookstands announce loudly they are turning to primitive practices, ancient cults and witchcraft, astrology and spiritualism, fortune telling, the very things which the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the other great world religions would clarify. The very dress of youth reveals its frustration. You see young people, whether it is in Munich or Berlin, San Francisco or Vancouver or, indeed, on Yonge Street.

1040

Our day knows only two kinds of state: the liberal and the totalitarian. The totalitarian state quite definitely does not want its children educated in the role which religions have played in our world. The totalitarian state is itself the god of its citizens; it wants its children to be educated in view of itself. But the liberal state does not choose to be the god of its citizens. It wants its children to be educated not in view of itself but in view of their own nature, their hunger to cope with questions of meaning and value. The children are only educated in view of their own nature when they are educated in view of the ultimate end of their nature, and that is what the great world religions are all about.

The state sometimes wants to leave this ultimate end alone, and perhaps in our pluralist society it pretty well has to in terms of teaching religion formally. But the nonconfessional, multifaith curriculum proposed would make a valuable contribution to the education of our youth. It is good that our ministers of education and multiculturalism are working together to establish a multifaith committee to look at the issue of religious education in our school system.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As a young man -- part of my sordid past that most members will not know about -- I was inclined towards entering the Anglican priesthood. Either I fell down a slippery slope or I saw the light after that. For a period I became angrily antireligious, and now I would consider myself a blithely irreligious person. But I am standing today to say I am rising as such a person to support the resolution proposed by the member for Hamilton West, and I do not think it is any contradiction in terms of my value structure to do so. I am also a democrat, a civil libertarian and a pluralist who happens to share --

Hon. Mr. Mancini: And a socialist.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And a socialist, yes. I happen to share most of the underlying principles which most people from the Judaeo-Christian tradition would consider themselves to have as part of their ethics.

I like the resolution of the member for Hamilton West for a number of reasons, which I will come to. There is one thing I would love it to have incorporate, but I realize why, in practicality, it could not incorporate it, and that is an absolute eradication of one section of the Education Act and a whole set of regulations around the Education Act that presently exist before we move to the much more enlightened approach towards the discussion of religion and the role of religion in our school system.

The sections I think need to be wiped out are as follows:

“235(c) It is the duty of a teacher to inculcate by precept and example respect for religion and the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality and the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.”

I just am very grateful. speaking personally and not on behalf of the rest of the members here, that we do not have those kinds of qualifications required for members of the Legislature. I have talked to several of the pages here about their teachers and I am happy to report that all of their teachers happen to have this wonderful combination of attributes.

But it is an absolutely ludicrous section of the Education Act, as many members who have been teachers might know. It is also offensive in terms of the new pluralist society that we have in this country to suggest that somebody who would be coming from another faith -- from the Islamic faith, for instance -- should have to inculcate the principles of Judaeo-Christian morality as part of his or her function in our school system. As far as I am concerned, the sooner that section can be struck from the Education Act the better it will be for all of us.

I think it is vital that we separate out the notions of religious observance in our school system from instruction about religion, which is what I think the resolution of the member for Hamilton West allows us to do. The tradition of religious observance in our schools is one which I would like to see ended. It has a major bias towards the particular sectarian position of the Protestant Christian approach to religion, and I think for that reason it needs to be ended.

I would just refer to some statistics recently taken from the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association, which surveyed and received responses from 46 of its members, and this is what is happening in our schools today: Thirty-nine out of the 46 use the Lord’s Prayer every day. It may be a surprise to some members to know that the Lord’s Prayer is not something that transcends all religious beliefs; it happens to be a Christian prayer. Thirty-two of them use readings from scriptures, from the Bible, again something which, I would suggest, does not pertain to all of the students we have in the system at the moment. Only half of them have any kind of religious instruction at all, and I will come to that in a minute.

The sections of regulations that have made this come about are regulation 262, as amended. Let me read to members some of the things that exist now which, in my view, are offensive to people like myself who are irreligious and to people who have religious viewpoints other than a Christian viewpoint in our public schools. It says: “A public school shall be opened or closed each day with religious exercises consisting of the reading of the scriptures or other suitable readings and the repeating of the Lord’s Prayer or other suitable prayers.”

As I have indicated, what is done by practice in our elementary schools at this point is that the Lord’s Prayer is used and Christian scriptures are used. That is the predominant usage, and the same kind of ratio takes place even in our secondary education institutions in the province of Ontario.

“The religious exercises under subsection 1 may include the singing of one or more hymns.” Again I would just like to raise with members the question of what particular religious affiliation hymns attach themselves to.

“(6) Instruction in religious education shall be given by the teacher and issues of a controversial or sectarian nature shall be avoided.” I take it, as the member for Hamilton West was saying in his speech, that it is in fact the controversial issues that, one hopes, will get kids to understand more about religious precepts and ethical bases for various communities, and they can be quite useful.

The passive inculcation of the Protestant Christian perspective is not dealt with here. That is happening, in my view, by virtue of the way we handle these religious observances.

Subsection 10 says that any kid who does not wish to take this can step into the hallway and not be involved, can be segregated; can, one hopes, withstand peer pressures to participate with people of other faiths and hold strong to his own values, whatever those may be, an aspect of our regulations which I find totally offensive and which I hope will be struck down in the courts in the coming months.

The need to have discussion of religious premises, of the varying points of view of religions around the world, is vital, in my view, in terms of the evolving Ontario, in terms of discussion of multiculturalism and antiracist curricula. That is why the resolution of the member for Hamilton West is so important for us to deal with at this time.

1050

We tend to shove heritage-language courses off to one side, outside the school system, at this point and to demean them in terms of their importance, and we have a view of religious observation that is basically biased towards a Protestant Christian approach. What we need to do is bring into the curriculum an interfaith approach to religions that will make all the kids in the school system understand the connections as well as the distinctions between the various communities of the world and, I am happy to hear the member for Hamilton West say, the whole question of belief or unbelief in terms of why people make the kinds of decisions that they have in terms of their religious preferences.

This kind of approach has been tried in England and, I think, with some good measure of success. The member for Hamilton West is suggesting only that we have an advisory council to look at this, to develop a curriculum and to develop a few pilot projects around Ontario to see how they would work.

I say it is high time we did this. It is high time we did it in a spirit of pluralism, which has been referred to by other members. As somebody who has no particular connection with any of the sectarian groups within our society and who is widely irreligious, as I said, I can support that kind of notion. I would just hope that the government, as it follows that, will then move away from the kinds of prejudices which are inherent presently in the Education Act and its regulations to this much more progressive approach to religious education and its role in our society. I applaud the member for Hamilton West for bringing this forward today.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased today to have the opportunity to express my feelings on this resolution brought forward by the member for Hamilton West. I should let the member know right now that while I support the concept of the freedom to worship and the instruction of religious education, I must add that I believe that whether our school system is the proper place for full instruction to fully accomplish what his resolution would determine in the end is a concern to me.

It is part of the whole, and we should be wary of its becoming a part of the whole curriculum. Because of that, I fear that other important subjects are bound to suffer. There are only so many hours in the school day and only so many teachers providing instruction in our school system.

I want to say that this is primarily the reason I have some concerns with the very principle of religion within the curriculum of our school system in Ontario. I strongly believe that our schools exist primarily to equip pupils and students with a range of practical skills and factual information. As I noted earlier, it is beyond the role and responsibility of our schools to seek to educate pupils and students in an area of experience -- namely, religious education -- which is uniquely personal and on which subject there is no single accepted collection of writings or knowledge.

I know that the wide range of religious beliefs which now form part of the overall diversity of religious experience in Ontario today is one of the most vivid manifestations of the diversity of our society. I know there are a significant number of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and members of other faith communities living in this province. There are also large numbers of Christians and Jews.

These religious groups, of course, cross ethnic divisions. Many West Indian immigrants and other descendants are Christians, including Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Methodists and members of Pentecostal churches and other denominations, and the Asian community also includes Christians as well as adherents of the major eastern faiths. Of the European minorities, for example, the Italians are Roman Catholic, the Greek Cypriots are Greek Orthodox and the Turkish Cypriots are Muslims.

It is important to recognize that the faiths of these minority communities are in no sense minority religions but are major faiths which have often played a leading role in shaping world history. One cannot, for example, fully understand the contemporary world without some knowledge of the influence of Islam.

In my view, one of the major aims of education should be to broaden the horizon of all pupils to a greater understanding and appreciation of the diversity of value systems and lifestyles which are now represented in our society, while at the same time assisting ethnic minority communities to maintain what they regard as the essential elements of their cultural identities.

It is clear to me that for many ethnic minority communities, especially those from the numerous faiths within the Asian community, respect and recognition for their religious beliefs is seen as one of the factors, and in some cases the central factor, in maintaining their community strength and cohesiveness. This emphasis is perhaps a case in point for having religious education conducted in a home or church atmosphere rather than in the school system, except, that is, in a historical and social context.

Any consideration of religious education must recognize that there has long been an emotive and often compassionate debate about the role of schools in relation to religion in society, a debate to which the multifaith character of schools with substantial ethnic minority populations has now added a further dimension.

Religious education is an aspect of school life which involves far more than just the imparting of a particular body of knowledge to the pupils. since it raises complex questions relating to the spiritual and aesthetic development of the individual young person as well as impinging very directly on the essential beliefs and values of his or her family and community.

I do not believe our teachers, with all due respect -- and it would have to be proven to me; they would have to be properly trained, prepared and equipped to carry out such a religious mandate -- I am not so sure they want to get involved in an area of instruction in the first place. Again, the realm of religious instruction or education is best left to our religious leaders or the parents of the students.

Saying that, I recognize that it is essential that we do have some instruction in the morning. I do believe in the Lord’s Prayer and I would have no objections if a verse or two were read, but I am a firm believer that the home and the community and the setting within that community is where the basic instruction should come from.

After spending a considerable amount of time discussing my concern with regard to this resolution on the grounds of the apparent conflict between the terms “education” and “religion,” on the grounds that it should be taught in the home or within the religious community itself rather than in our school system and on the grounds that more practical and useful subjects will suffer if we approve the instruction of religious education in our schools, I would now like to spend a little time focusing on other reasons for my concern: namely, the exorbitant cost of establishing religious programs, education programs, the cost of extra teachers and teaching material and resources and the increased burden it will place on our taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware, and most people are today, of the education costs in Ontario when you pay your tax bill, senior citizens who are paying the exorbitant tax and everyone else. It is of concern to me. That is why I say it belongs in the home and in the community, and I said earlier I certainly have no objections with some minor teaching in the classroom in the morning.

I think this resolution put forward by the member certainly indicates that he wants a study to look into the feasibility of it, but I think that within our school system, within our school communities, the community school boards should be able to determine what they feel is the most important aspect of the teachings which we should be placing upon the students in Ontario.

Mr. Velshi: I do support this resolution, mostly in view of the fact that it is coming from a person who belongs to part of the dominant culture and religion of this province.

I tend to disagree with two items suggested not by the member who is putting this resolution but by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). Let’s not do away with the little we have in religion. I think we always tend to choose the path of least resistance in saying, “Instead of introducing something new, let’s do away with what we’ve got and be nondenominational.” I do not agree with that.

In terms of the Lord’s Prayer, as a Muslim, and the only Muslim in the House here. I have no problem with reciting the Lord’s Prayer. I would hate to see that disappear from the scene. What I would like to see is, let’s improve on it and introduce the other cultures and other people to other religions. I think that is more important.

I will support the resolution if that is the intent. If the intent is what the member for Scarborough West has said, I will not support this resolution.

1100

Mr. Allen: First, may I thank all members participating in the debate. I think they have all made very moving and often personal statements which are of consequence. I particularly call the attention of members to the fact that two of the statements have come from school trustees who have great experience in the field and whose statements I would commend to their colleagues as they wrestle with this question around the province. It will be in their hands ultimately to dispose of this question, and they have some good examples here.

May I say to the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) that, yes, the home and the church are the places where religious nurture and the formation of faith take place, must take place, will take place; the school is not the place where that can happen properly and well. I think one has to make that distinction in order to work through this particular problem. But the member is quite right that religious education in the schools will raise further questions that have to be addressed and will be addressed, hopefully, in the homes, churches, synagogues, temples and so on, around the province.

I want to say very briefly to some persons who might be concerned about what happens to their children that I, as an active Protestant seeking bilingual education for my children, sent them to a Catholic separate school, which was French. That was a great adventure and a great experiment in our family life. It was very interesting that they participated in the full range of the religious activities of that school. They were even part of the confirmation process that all the children took part in. I was delighted to see that they were received.

My youngest son was not able, of course, to complete that process because we are Protestants. Throughout the whole of his schooling, he consistently believed that what we did as a family in our own church was the way it should be done, and that is the way we still do it. But he was asked by his teachers and colleagues if he would play the organ at their confirmation. I think that is the kind of inclusiveness on a multifaith basis that we are looking for in personal ways for our families in the education system, and that is the spirit in which I present this resolution.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. Harris, in the absence of Mr. McCague, moved resolution 29:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Ministry of Health is developing new computer systems for OHIP and recognizing that these systems will keep records for every person receiving health coverage under OHIP and recognizing that the billings under OHIP system are climbing at an alarming rate, the government of Ontario should incorporate in the new system a method of issuing regular statements to subscribers of OHIP in order that they more accurately see the total costs of the health care coverage they receive from the OHIP system.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation, of which he may reserve any portion for the windup.

Mr. Harris: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I will not reserve any time. Whatever time remains may be used by other members who wish to comment on the resolution. I thank the House for allowing me to move the resolution on behalf of the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague). The member has been enjoying the use of our health care system for the last couple of days. He is now at home, doing fine, and will be back next week. I think members will be pleased to note that.

However, it was his wish that the resolution go forward in his absence. While I know not nearly as eloquently or nearly as precisely as he may have commented on the resolution, I will attempt in his absence to put forward some of the arguments why the member for Simcoe West thinks this resolution is important and why I too think it deserves the support of the House.

It is very timely for a number of reasons. We are wrestling with utilization in the health care system right now. We find it ironic that the only area of utilization that the Ministry of Health or the minister or the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is prepared to comment on at this time is the hospital system. We find that passing strange because when we look at the hospital system and the amount of money that it costs the health care system, there are far greater problems based on utilization or costs escalating very rapidly, or the percentage of the budget that is going towards health care costs. Quite frankly, many of the areas, in our view, are being ignored and the emphasis is being put on the wrong syllable.

The emphasis, we feel, is not going into the areas where the costs appear to be out of control. We do not see health care costs in the hospital system as being out of control. We do not on this side of the House think that there are not problems there that have to be addressed, but we do find it ironic that the main problems and the lack of control, as the Treasurer has indicated, of the open-endedness of the system are not being addressed at this time. So the resolution is very timely because of that.

The resolution is also very timely as noted in the body of the resolution in that we know the Ontario hospital insurance plan’s computer system in Kingston is out of date, that there are problems there, that it served its purpose at one time but the time has come when it must be updated or it must be replaced. While the ministry is looking at what kind of computer system could be put into place there, this resolution suggests that that system should allow for what the resolution is calling for, that is, for the users of the system, those who are billing OHIP, to be able to have an accounting of what those services cost regardless of who is paying for them. As we know, at this time it is 100 per cent paid for out of the tax dollars collected either through general taxation or through OHIP premiums.

That is the context and the timing of this resolution, and I think it is timely. It is one of the reasons why the member for Simcoe West felt it was important to go now in those contexts.

I want to give the members a few interesting statistics. I do not want to bore them with statistics. but we are into an area that I think is relevant when we look at trends. In 1977-78, from the health care pie 52 per cent of the money spent went to hospitals and 24 per cent went to OHIP billings. Ten years later, the hospitals get 44 per cent. Eight per cent less is going into the actual hospitals and eight per cent more, 32 per cent, is now coming out of the OHIP billings.

We can see that the percentage of the pie over 10 years that hospitals consume is falling rather dramatically, particularly in relation to the OHIP billings, which have gone from 24 per cent to 32 per cent. It is that 32 per cent that this resolution addresses, the OHIP billing portion of the health care pie. It is the area that is growing the fastest, whether OHIP is billed for tests and doctors’ fees directly or other services that are covered under OHIP. This is the area that is mushrooming the fastest.

What this resolution suggests is that it would be beneficial -- and I think it might have been a difficult resolution to implement 10, 15 or 20 years ago -- to investigate; that we should look at this computer system. In my view, seeing the sophistication of computer systems, this ought not to cost any more than putting in a system. We are saying to make sure it is adaptable to that.

1110

It gives rise, of course, to all kinds of variation. One of the principles is that if people know what it costs the system every time they go to the doctor -- the doctor orders two or three tests, and they have to go the hospital for a laboratory test and they have to go back to the doctor -- they will have a better appreciation of how their tax dollars are being spent.

It may be that there are some things where one’s viewpoint is: “Well, the government is going to spend the money anyway. I might as well be double-extra certain, cautious of my own health care, because if I don’t use the system, somebody else will.” Or “They’re going to spend this money in any event.” The other expectation is: “Well, the money is free. It’s there. The system is sitting there just waiting for me to come in.”

Of course, one of those appears to be true of this government. We would like to think the first one is not true, that in fact if funds are not necessary in a certain area, the government will not figure out a way to spend them. That has not been the case for three years, but we think that with the effective opposition we have been putting up on spending being out of control, the government is going to change. If it wants to get re-elected, it will; if it does not, then another government will have to change it.

The second one, though, is a fallacy that many believe, that the system costs this amount of money “whether I use it or not.” That, of course, is not true, because the system is based on utilization. Most of the costs are based on that. So we think that by getting a billing for the use of the services, people will have better appreciation. If that is coupled with some government control on expenditures and government control on itself, we think that will lead to far greater efficiencies in the system.

How would it work? I do not know. This resolution does not say it has to work this way or it has to work that way. Obviously, we would be calling for the most efficient way for it to work while the computer is being put into place, but it may be that quarterly billing or a quarterly notice goes out to users of OHIP. I do not think that would be particularly difficult to do.

But a lot of other things could come into play, and I think the government should look at what options may be there. I am not in a position to know what will work and what will not work. This says: “Will you explore these options? Will you look at other jurisdictions?” We know there are some others that do this. The government should look at what is working for them and what is not working for them and see if it will work for us here in Ontario.

There are a number of other things, in my view. I would now like to acknowledge to the member for Simcoe West that I am putting forth a few of my own views. There are a number of other things that I think could be considered at the same time. One of them is that instead of issuing everybody a number, we issue them a credit card. When they take that card to the doctor, the doctor has to run that through, write the charge on it and sign it, and the patient signs it. That is what the doctor submits to OHIP to be reimbursed with. I think we should look at that.

That, then, would not necessitate a billing or any extra cost on behalf of OHIP to notify the patient. He would know right then and there. Any other service is done that way, whether the individual pays for it, his company pays for it or, in this case, the government pays for it. I do not know any other system where somebody can send in bills without the actual user knowing.

The computer in Kingston does not know who used the system, and the way the system operates now, the patient does not know either. I think patients might be shocked to learn sometimes when they go to the doctor that there is $15 here, there is another $32 for a test and there is another $45 for a test. I think we should know that.

I do not want members to construe anything I say as being critical of the medical profession, but there is a suspicion that some doctors are sending in more billings than the actual services they perform. Whether it is true in one case or a million cases does not matter. The suspicion is there because we do not know, the government does not know, OHIP does not know, the public does not know, nobody knows. There is no control mechanism, and that is what usually leads to suspicions.

Members have all probably heard the story that goes around. I do not know where these stories start, but we hear there is some doctor somewhere in some home for the aged who goes through, walks up and down the halls, just says “Hi, Mary” and “Hi, Jack,” waves at them all – “How are you feeling today?” “Fine.” “Isn’t that good?” -- and thirty chits go in. I am not accusing anybody of that, but I am telling members that they have all heard the stories. I am also telling members that they do not know whether that can happen or not.

They have to send people an OHIP number anyway. When they get their new computer in, I assume we will all get new numbers. Why do they not send us a number on a card? Then, whenever the system is used, when we go to the hospital -- and most of us now have hospital cards anyway that they give us, that they run through with our number on it -- they would run our card through and they would have to tell us what it is the system costs. I think there is a lot of sense in that and I am suggesting that this resolution would allow the government to look at that possibility as well.

There are a number of people who are suggesting that another way to control utilization is through user fees. I do not know whether that is right or wrong or whether that is what Ontario wants or not, but I know we do not have a system in place to accommodate that.

For example, everybody has a credit card, so you sign the chits and the doctor sends them in. Now you know what the doctor is sending in. People with an income of $40,000 or over, for example, could pay $5 every time they use the system, to a ceiling of, say, $100. If it could be shown that in fact that does help to control costs and that only those people earning $40,000 or more would want to go with that option, if it could be shown that could cost them $100 a year -- it could cost them nothing but, for sure, if they do not do it, it costs them $200 in taxes -- people at that income level might say, “This makes sense to me.” I know that is a dirty word for a lot of people.

We have the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy studying utilization and various health committees that are all looking at it now. In my view, I do not think any stone should be left unturned as we look for ways to deliver services in a more efficient and upfront way, in a way that everybody understands.

Those are some things that I am not saying are right; I am saying they should be looked at. I am saying that as the member for Nipissing, not as the member for Simcoe West. This resolution allows the government to take a look at a whole host and a whole range of options at that end.

Let me give members a few other statistics. I said the OHIP payments had risen from 24 per cent to 32 per cent. On February 18, 1988, the Ontario Nurses’ Association told the press that one of the reasons for increased OHIP billings has been the increase in after-hours surgery. After-hours surgery rose by 20 per cent between 1986 and 1987. OHIP pays 30 per cent more than usual for surgery performed between 5 p.m. and 12 p.m. and 50 per cent more between 12 p.m. and 7 a.m.

If we are doing nonemergency surgery during those times, we should be taking a look at the utilization of our system at that end. Keeping a record of the billings and knowing when things take place might provide surprising figures to hospitals, doctors and patients. This type of tracking system that we are talking about helps you look at those types of things.

Both doctors and the ministry blame the increase in after-hours surgery on the increase in demand for surgery. Are we being penny wise and pound foolish by saying no to more operating rooms? At the same time, operating rooms are being used perhaps more around the clock. Is that costing us more? If every operation is 50 per cent more, perhaps it is. I think we should be looking at some of those things.

1120

I have mentioned that the OHIP computer is obviously having problems; that it was installed in the early 1970s and those of you who keep track of computers realize what can occur. I had one installed in my office last year, and now the Board of Internal Economy tells me it is out of date and it should be something different. This seems to be happening to those who rely on computers; whether it be accountants particularly, they seem to be replacing the things every year. I do not think there is any question it is out of date and has to be looked at. Perhaps now is the time to look at a system whereby, if it can be done at a reasonable cost -- and in my view I do not see why it cannot be done at no extra cost -- it may, in fact, save a significant amount of money.

I want to mention a couple of other things. There were some quotes from this government when it banned extra billing. I am not suggesting that we go back to extra billing. I think the government has taken a direction and the public has responded to that direction. Among the things the government said was: “Federal funds withheld from Ontario amount to $53 million. These penalties will be enough to build a 300-bed acute care hospital.” Since the government has done that, it has cancelled plans to build an acute care hospital in North Bay, of fewer beds than that. So, obviously, that is not where the money went even though the government said it could do that.

It could pay the cost of running five perinatal clinics for high-risk infants. Those are being cut back. We know it and we have seen in the headlines where children now are being flown to the United States because we cannot handle them.

I cannot think of one physician who would pass up a chance to have these needed health care facilities. Right; $53 million per year will go a long way towards helping us address these problems.

This resolution is dealing with utilization in that system. What happened to the $53 million per year? The billings went up half a billion dollars. The government saved $53 million and they went up a half a billion dollars -- not a total half a billion; half a billion more than the government budgeted for. The Treasurer is the guy who says, “A budget is a budget is a budget.” That is what he tells the hospitals. But what does he do to himself? He has been over budget billions of dollars in the last three years.

These are utilization problems and I think it is fair that it be pointed out to the government that we do have problems there. We understand the government is concerned about them and we understand it is setting up a committee to look at them. I have mentioned some of the things that have happened since the government has taken office. In my view, this resolution is an attempt to help address the overall health care cost. I think it would be very beneficial for all members to support it.

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to rise today to support this resolution and to encourage all of my colleagues to support it as well. I would like to congratulate in particular the honourable member for Simcoe West, who unfortunately is not able to be with us today, as well as the honourable member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

I think the most important aspect of this resolution is an acknowledgement that the people of Ontario deserve to know how public moneys are being spent. They also deserve to know how much it costs for the services that they use. The resolution suggests a means of doing that. I think its benefit is primarily that of an educational tool.

Approximately a third of the provincial budget is spent on health care. There is no doubt that hospital costs and medical costs generally are rising very dramatically. The average cost for a stay in a hospital varies across the province according to what is required for an individual, but it is something in the order of $200 to $500 a day, which is certainly a sum that most individuals could not afford to pay for directly themselves.

The honourable member for Simcoe West and his colleague are interested in educating people. I think that is highly desirable, but I do pose the question: What exactly is it that people would be educated about if this proposal were accepted by the government?

There are two possible benefits, I would submit. I suppose one is that people will be struck by the extreme costs and therefore use the health care system less. The second option is that people will be more sensitive to what those costs are and perhaps appreciate more carefully the relationship between taxes and the health care services that are provided.

In short, it would be a situation where a better environment would be more likely to occur for intelligent discussion and ultimately better decision-making about health care services and expenditures, and that environment potentially would be improved at all levels, not simply at the level of the provincial government, but also at the level of the district health councils, individual hospitals and individual decisions made by doctors and patients. I believe the second result is far more likely to occur.

With a few exceptions, I suppose, I doubt very much if people would go less frequently to a doctor or to a hospital as a result of some system of giving them notices. I do not believe that people for the most part abuse the health care system, certainly not on a conscious basis and, generally speaking, I would say not on any basis at all. Those people who might be considered by some to be abusers, I suspect would not likely be deterred anyway. There may be any number of reasons why they may go and seek out health services more than, objectively, might be desirable.

I think we also have to bear in mind that it is not just a question of knowing about the costs that automatically is going to control the rise in the costs. Rising health care service costs are a result of a number of fairly complicated factors, not the least of which is that we now have an increasing ability to deal with health care problems that we did not have in the past. Really, that whole debate is certainly one that goes beyond the scope of the resolution that is before us today.

I would also like to add, because it was brought up in the speech of the previous speaker, that deterrent fees, also known as user fees, are not in my view desirable at all, particularly in the case of what we would loosely describe as the working poor, people who do work, and probably also the middle class, particularly families, for whom even a small fee may serve as a deterrent to going for proper health care. That is not the objective of the system currently, that is not the objective of this government, and I do not think that is the objective of the proposal, although it was referred to, as I say, by the previous speaker.

Now without withdrawing any of my support for the proposal, I think it is fair to note there may be other ways to accomplish the same goal that may be more effective. I understand there are hospitals now that provide information to people who have attended at the hospital to inform them about the costs that are involved. That may be a more efficient way of alerting people to the costs in a way that does not drive up administrative expenses.

There was a comment made by the member for Nipissing that I thought was quite interesting. He suggested that perhaps a bill be signed by the individual before being sent to the Ontario health insurance plan That strikes me as something that might be quite efficient to do, and if it is efficient to do, I would certainly encourage the Ministry of Health to take a close look at that.

1130

But there are other problems in terms of providing this information. The first one is the question of confidentiality. The second one is the administrative cost of preparing information and then mailing it out, even with a new computer. The third one is a question of accuracy. That really goes to the heart of the inadequacies of the existing computer system. The auditor has reported on this and I would like to deal with some of the comments that he made to try to explain the problems that are encountered.

“Participant’s identification on an incoming claim is compared to participant’s identification previously recorded. A match condition results when the first name, sex and birth data agree. Where, however, a match does not occur, a new participant is created. Submission of inaccurate or differing information by the provider of the service can, therefore, result in a participant being recorded more than once.” When one keeps in mind that there are some 81 million claims per year, one can understand quite quickly how even the most minor differentiation in the data produces a very difficult problem in terms of data entry and then producing the results.

This is a notion that I put forward on behalf of myself. It may be that the solution is not to provide individualized responses about expenses in terms of if you have gone to the doctor, what does it cost you for that particular trip, but rather to provide standardized information about the average trip to a doctor in that area, or the average stay in a hospital or for perhaps that type of service. That may be far more efficient in terms of the production of information to inform people and it would still achieve the goal involved.

One of the things that I think is also notable for all members of this House and for the public is the prompt action that has taken place with the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). On November 18, 1987, she sent a letter to all district health councils requesting their input to assess a possible new system that would be called the unique personal identifier system. That new system would involve, potentially, a new registration number for every individual in Ontario, either assigned at birth or at the institution of the system, if it were brought in, or when somebody would be emigrating into Ontario.

The kind of data that they would require would be date of birth, the sex of the individual and an address, something so that they have a better system of matching up. I would point out that there are some technical problems with this because there is a right of privacy for every individual and there is a personal right of access to information about an individual. That has to be preserved and, of course, that is inherent in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and one of the principles of this government.

Secondly, there was a report in mid-February of this year to a legislative committee about the status of this. I understand there is a submission now being made to Management Board and this is something being actively considered although it is still in the discussion stage.

In summation, I would again urge all members to support this proposal. Again, I congratulate the member for Simcoe West. I think we do have to look for innovative ways to address the question of costs. I do not think we want to sacrifice any important services in the health care area and, therefore, we need a well-planned system to be an efficient system. That is exactly what the Minister of Health is endeavouring to do and is doing currently. I again urge all members to support this resolution.

Mr. Reville: It is a pleasure to join with colleagues such as the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) and the member for Nipissing in support of the resolution from the member for Simcoe West. I am pleased to share with the House the information that the member for Simcoe West will be back with us shortly. I am pleased to hear that the health care system seems to have come through for him.

A number of the recognitions in the resolution have been commented on by the member for High Park-Swansea and the member for Nipissing. There is no question that a new computer system for OHIP would be a good idea. I think it is somewhat bizarre that there are around 26 million names in the system in Ontario, particularly in view of the fact that there are somewhat fewer than 10 million people in the province. I think it is high time we reduced the number of hysterectomies performed on men. Correcting the OHIP computer system would have some beneficial effect thereon.

I also understand that large swarms of computer fixers are required just to keep that system from collapsing and sighing totally. I understand as well that there is a man in a kind of closet there in the OHIP centre in Kingston with an eyeshade, arm-suspenders and a kind of quill-pen on a chair. He is not somehow connected to the computer, but he sends a bill to Ottawa every now and then for about $4 billion. He is sort of scribing this away with his quill-pen. It is lucky we have him there.

The other recognition the member for Simcoe West draws our attention to is particularly important. He says billings under OHIP are climbing at an alarming rate. That, actually, is somewhat understated. It is a rare occasion when a politician actually understates things. I think the member for Nipissing referred to some of the numbers. They really are dramatic.

The increase, 1982-83 over 1988-89, is 117.8 per cent. That is a huge amount. That makes me want to say yet again that the government’s gimlet eye on the increase in expenditure on hospital and related facilities perhaps misses the point when we are looking at significantly more increases in the amount of transfer payments for services provided by physicians and practitioners.

The reservation I have about the resolution of the member for Simcoe West, although it does not appear in the words of the resolution, is that there is a tiny implication that patients may somehow be to blame for the increased utilization of doctors. I have a suspicion about what we will shortly hear if the Scott task force reports to us on an interim basis. Perhaps it will not report to us for many years; I do not know.

The Scott task force, members of the Legislature will recall, is the task force set up by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) under the chairmanship of the former Deputy Minister of Health. It is said to be a co-operative venture, another one of these famous co-operative ventures undertaken by the Minister of Health, in which the Ontario Medical Association and a number of health bureaucrats will sit down and scratch their heads about why it is that OHIP transfer payments have increased so dramatically.

I fear that one of the first things we will hear from that task force is that the problem is patient utilization. If anyone is not familiar with that jargon, it means consumers are demanding services from doctors they should not have but that doctors have no choice but to deliver, which I think is an absurd proposition.

Perhaps in advance support of such a claim. I was speaking with a doctor from the OMA last evening, who told me three of the patients she had seen that day had come to her office because they had seen something on television about a new treatment and dropped in to have an appointment with the doctor to check it out. Whether that happens on a regular basis, I do not know.

1140

Interjection.

Mr. Reville: My colleague from the riding I call Windsor-Riverdale but which is really Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), an excellent former Health critic, reminds me sotto voce that there is a huge increase in the amount of the second flavour of utilization, which is the utilization of drugs. The first flavour is utilization of doctors; the second flavour is utilization of drugs.

He is quite right, of course. There is an even more dramatic increase in the drug benefit plan. That has gone up, 1982-83 over 1988-89, by 168.9 per cent, which is a gigantic increase. Of course, the physicians are somewhat involved in that as well because they are the only people who are allowed to write out one of those little bits of paper that one gets to take off to the pharmacy, and at that point the pharmacy takes a hit and then sends a very large amount of money to a pharmaceutical company.

If anyone is interested, in the 1987-88 in-year changes, that is the amount by which the Treasurer underestimated the expenditure, the winner is OHIP, which is the payments to doctors. That was $198 million more than was budgeted; not far behind the Ontario drug benefit plan, overspent by $52 million.

I was quite taken with the approach suggested by the member for Nipissing that, rather than sending statements to subscribers, if the system were to be implemented, one would get a credit card slip when one got the service. That has some advantages, at least from my point of view. One is concern that if statements were sent to users of the system, there might be included in those statements procedures that a person would be just as happy if other persons in their household or perhaps the holder of the card did not know about. One can think of, for those of the members who are fortunate enough to have teenage daughters, perhaps they were getting birth control pills from the family physician and did not want to tell dad or mom about that. Then the method of giving that patient a receipt at the point of service would be more appropriate than sending a letter to me saying my daughter had just been at the doctor’s getting birth control pills. I want members to know I discussed the matter with my daughter and we were all agreed that she had made an appropriate decision in that regard.

The member for Nipissing said we should leave no stone unturned in trying to determine the reason for costs in our health care system. I do not disagree with that. I think we should always be careful, though, that when we are turning stones none of them falls on the patients in Ontario.

With that, I shall conclude.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support the resolution of my colleague the member for Simcoe West.

I would like to emphasize the importance of the resolution in my mind. I will just read it: “That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Ministry of Health is developing new computer systems for OHIP, the government of Ontario should incorporate in the new system a method of issuing regular statements to subscribers of OHIP in order that they may more accurately see the total costs of the health care coverage they receive from the OHIP system.”

I think it is most important that people are aware of the costs. It simply means that the resolution encourages government to make the public more aware of the tremendous escalating costs of our health care system. It is unfortunate that the member for Simcoe West, who put so much work into this resolution, could not be with us today and indeed ended up in the hospital because of all his efforts in trying to bring in an excellent resolution. I am sure the members will appreciate that. It is unfortunate he is not here, but it is very fortunate he has recovered and will be with us next week.

In any event, while he was in the hospital, I think he likely checked out the costs of the health care system while he was there. Knowing the tremendous work he does, I believe he will have all the facts for us next week. He never quits working. I might mention that while the member for Simcoe West was Chairman of Management Board he was always vitally concerned about the costs of the ministry and kept a close control. Indeed, I suggest that the government could do much worse than to engage the member for Simcoe West in assisting it to control its expenditures.

By coincidence, I spoke on this very topic of making the public more aware of the rapidly escalating costs of our health care system during the budget debate on May 9. Since most of the members never pay any attention to the budget debate, I would like to just mention a couple of the comments I made on that particular day. I said:

“There is a misconception about health care. Many members of the public think that Ontario has a free health care system. This budget drives home the point that health care is far from free. The Ministry of Health will spend $12.7 billion on health care this year, an increase of $1.2 billion over last year. This represents spending of approximately $1,350 for every man, woman and child in this province. If we paid our health care costs directly instead of through taxation, it would cost my daughter’s family of five $6,750 this year, and likely more next year and in the future.”

My question was, “Why does the Ministry of Health not make people aware of the tremendous costs in our health care system?”

I go on once more to offer “my very positive and constructive advice as to a partial solution to the soaring health care costs in this province,” and I make the suggestion that we “make the users of health care knowledgeable about the costs of being confined in a hospital or having an appointment with the doctor. A simple mechanism could be put in place. A patient, on checking out of a hospital or on visiting a doctor, would receive a statement similar to Visa or MasterCard, stating the amount of the billing. The patient would sign the same and receive a statement. It would not cost the patient anything, but would impress on that taxpayer that health care is not free.”

Does any member of this Legislature know the cost of staying in a hospital? Is it $200, $300, $500 or a $1,000 a day? I think people would be encouraged to try to be more considerate of their needs if they realized the tremendous costs involved. It makes sense to follow the advice of the member for Simcoe West to incorporate a system to make the public more knowledgeable about their individual costs to the health care system.

In a recent issue of a Ministry of Municipal Affairs publication, under “Notes from the Provinces,” it states that Saskatchewan was to introduce computerized health cards. It says: “Health Minister George McLeod has announced that the government is planning to introduce a computer-readable plastic health card. Mr. McLeod said, ‘A computerized system also offers the potential for more effective monitoring of prescription drug abuse and greater access to information in emergency medical situations.’ He goes on to say, ‘It will also bring efficiency that will help reduce overall costs in the health care system.’”

That, I think, is what we would all hope to achieve. I might mention that we should be aware that health costs have increased dramatically over the last four years. Four years ago, it cost the average Ontario citizen $884 -- at least it cost the government $884 for this citizen. The cost today is now over $1,247, compared with the national average increase to $1,191 from $927 during the same period of time. Surely we would all agree that we cannot allow this trend to continue. If we keep adding more to this health system, we cannot do the many things that we have to do.

1150

On a personal basis, I would like to give one example concerning a constituent of mine in the riding of Wellington. On Tuesday, May 10, I brought to the attention of this House, through a member’s statement, the problem that David Elgie, who lives in the town of Fergus, has. He requires surgery to replace an artificial hip joint. It is worn and broken. It was implanted several years ago and it now has to be replaced.

He consulted with his doctor, Dr. Hugh Cameron, at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital on Wellesley Street. Members know the results of that because they were well documented last week. They cannot provide any surgical operations to replace hip joints and they advised Mr. Elgie that it would be one year: he must wait until April 4, 1989.

It is rather unacceptable to wait that long, but what really added to the problem is that he was advised just a few days ago that they have now changed the date and, instead of moving it up, have moved it back. David Elgie will now have an opportunity to have his surgery on June 12, 1990. That is two full years of suffering, and the possibility of infection and of having to use crutches. This in the finest health care system in the world?

We now have a government with three ministers who should be concerned about this issue. We are talking about a disabled senior citizen, so I would suggest the Minister of Health, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) should all be concerned about issues such as the one I have brought to members’ attention.

Quite frankly, David Elgie is placed in a very difficult position. He cannot tolerate the unbearable pain of his deteriorating artificial joints, which were implanted, as I mentioned, several years ago. He needs an operation and he needs it now, not two years from now.

He has asked me a question and I do not know how to answer him. He has asked me if he should make arrangements in the United States for his operation. He feels that our Ontario health care system has failed him and he must seek an operation out of this country.

I have been terribly disappointed that the government would allow this to happen when all the arthritic hospital needs is $1.6 million to be able to obtain the artificial joints it requires. The government, through its banning of extra billing by Bill 94, achieved a so-called saving of $50 million. Surely some of this $50 million could be directed into helping to keep David Elgie in Ontario, instead of forcing him to go to the United States to solve his problem.

Mr. Keyes: It is a pleasure to rise today and to speak on this particular resolution. I regret that the member for Simcoe West is not here with us so he could see that there is government support for his motion. We do know that he is investigating at first hand the health care system, the finest in the world, and will be returning to us tomorrow. He will have great comments to make. I am sure, about the care he received.

Perhaps he might even ask a special favour to endorse his resolution. Who knows, maybe part of his plan is to actually bring back the bill from the hospital, which will give the value of the services he has received while he was there. But at the end of his bill, where it says “balance owing,” he will see these great big zeros, indicating that this health care system is the best: he does not have to worry about payment at the hospital before he leaves.

My regret that the member for Nipissing is not here is the fact that in speaking on behalf of the resolution, he is endorsing the government initiatives but at the same time, while he may not want to have his remarks taken that way, he was acknowledging that the former government certainly did not keep up with its computer systems in order to meet the needs of the health care system.

I want to assure the House that within the Ministry of Health we are looking very closely at this particular issue, because the initial planning for the redesign of the Ontario health insurance plan computer has been completed. Improvements in technology available to us today make it possible to modernize and update the current OHIP system. It will be possible to have a registration system with strengthened security to prevent and protect individual privacy and confidentiality while providing improved access to personal health information.

Members have heard the minister say many times -- they will hear it again today -- that we need a well-planned and well-managed system. While it seems to bring forth some sighs, they seem not to understand that is what we are doing, even in this particular field. With our redevelopment of the computer system, we will have an integrated health information-data records system that will provide a very reliable basis for the analysis, planning and management of the health care system.

We heard reference today to a credit card system, which gives us some concern, but certainly we intend to issue a personal identifier number for health purposes on a card for every resident of Ontario. It could very well be in the same format as what we receive for identification purposes in the House at the present time.

We know that money is being put towards it. While the member for Nipissing was concerned about the extra money collected by the Treasurer. he should also be aware that 40 per cent of every new dollar collected in this province goes towards the health care system.

We know that the auditor said we should improve our system. The member for High Park-Swansea referred to the fact that we have some 81 million claims a year that are processed, we make payments out to some 20,000 physicians, and that amounts to in excess of $3 billion for those claims.

The system that we have is the most complex system in the government of Ontario today. It was designed, however, some 20 years ago. It needs to be updated. Over the years, it has undergone numerous changes and enhancements, but much more needs to be done. That is what is in the planning at the moment, which will certainly cost somewhere in the vicinity of $50 million.

The whole focus of providing additional knowledge base and database on which to plan our system stems from the work of the Evans, Spasoff and Podborski reports. I trust that all members have spent some time, particularly looking at the Evans report which has given us some of the concerns of the health care system which are being addressed.

Mr. Wildman: I read it every time I want to get to sleep at night.

Mr. Keyes: I am sure the member takes it to bed with him, and maybe someone reads it to him.

Within that system, “the provision of rights should be linked to the acceptance of” patients’ “responsibilities. In our universally accessible health care system, individuals should accept their responsibilities to use our health care system appropriately.” Further in the report, Evans makes reference to the fact that the consumers of health care services are increasingly interested in being better informed and in participating in decisions affecting their health.” But at the moment there are “relatively few tangible and acceptable measures by which patients’ rights could be balanced with patients’ responsibilities for judicious use of services and for sharing the general problem of reasonable cost control.”

In conclusion, the OHIP system is being redesigned in order to provide more comprehensive information for planning purposes in the future to ensure that patient providers and community health planners have an improved information planning base in the future. The Ministry of Health looks forward to receiving ideas from the providers of health care, from the district health councils and others on the types of general information that might be made available in order that both the public and the providers are better informed of the most cost-effective approaches to ensure quality health care systems.

We do have some institutions that provide the information as to what services have cost as a patient leaves, but they also indicate that there is no balance owing. Perhaps if we provide information on the costs, we should also provide information on how much they contributed through their OHIP premiums, which would be about 18 per cent.

This resolution is simply one of the approaches that we in the ministry are giving considerable consideration to in recognizing the importance of ensuring that the confidentiality of patient medical information is completely protected. We in the government will support this resolution of the member for Simcoe West, who I am sure will report back to us next week on the excellent health care he has received.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe this would be an appropriate way of calling your attention to the fact that in reading the text of my motion, an awkward portion rang in my ears that I did not quite catch at the time, but the word “in” in the fourth line should read “and.” It does not substantially change the burden of the motion, but it is a typographical error that should be corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain all members have made note of that change, unless we need another debate on it.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Allen has moved resolution 27.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Allen: May I request unanimous consent of the House to have this referred to the select committee on education?

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed to.

Resolution ordered for the select committee on education.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harris, in the absence of Mr. McCague. has moved resolution 29.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:03 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: Many judges today are imposing community service orders when sentencing young offenders. CSOs must be administered by an agency which seeks work assignments for the young offenders and supervises them with a view to their rehabilitation into the community.

Community Centre 55 in my riding sponsors a CSO operation which has built up a reputation over several years for providing young offenders with innovative rehabilitation programs. It has been funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

At this time, the operation is in jeopardy because the current grants from the ministry do not cover the costs of two full-time staff members, which is the bare minimum to operate an adequate program. It would be a disaster if this CSO program was discontinued when an experienced agency is needed for the current case load of 170 young people, plus a possible increase due to the new alternative measures program of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for young offenders.

I urge the minister to review funding for all CSO operations in the province to see that they are able to meet the need adequately and help our young offenders to become law-abiding, self-supporting members of our society.

D & E WOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when you, the pages and the staff were trying to bring some dignity to this assembly, I was touring a combiboard plant in my riding of Hastings-Peterborough. This was a progress tour of the plant, which is located in Herschel township just outside of Bancroft. The plans are for this to be completed in four to five months, which will certainly be a boon to the area.

Both the federal and provincial governments gave equal amounts of money, $6.75 million in interest-free loans, and I would like to thank the taxpayers of Canada and Ontario for their assistance to my riding. The municipal council and the economic development committee of the area also worked hard.

However, 70 per cent of the financial burden of this falls on the shoulders of D & E Wood Industries Ltd., along with the full responsibility of bringing the plant into production. I would like to pay tribute to the owners of the plant, the consulting engineers and the construction workers for their efforts thus far and hope that they complete this plant within the scheduled time frame.

TRAILMOBILE GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD.

Mr. Neumann: I would like to share with the House part of a resolution recently passed by Local 397 of the Canadian Auto Workers in Brantford.

“Whereas the 13 per cent unemployed community has suffered enough by the Mulroney government’s lack of compassion for Brantford workers; and

“Whereas the federal government’s Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs’ recent decision in making Trailmobile divest itself of the van assembly line and rejecting Trailmobile’s request to withdraw the requirement that forces it to sell this line in exchange for approval to purchase Fruehauf Canada; and

“Whereas this community has lobbied for and supported the request by Trailmobile through a number of parties, including all levels of government in opposition, the trade union movement and some of the largest buyers of this company’s products;

“Therefore be it resolved that this chapter of the Canadian Auto Workers’ retiree’s council condemns the recent decision by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to block this merger; and

“Be it further resolved that this chapter calls on the federal government to order the bureau of competition to rescind its decision by allowing Trailmobile to buy Fruehauf, thus enabling Trailmobile to remain competitive and thereby protecting the 300 families supporting Brantford incomes that are most certainly threatened by the current requirement.”

Our federal government, while promoting the free trade agreement with the United States, severely penalizes Canadian-owned industry which attempts to prepare for this challenge through consolidation. I urge them to reconsider this ill-conceived decision.

FRANCOPHONE COLLEGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to implore the government to consider the establishment of francophone colleges in Ontario. Last March, the minister at the time suggested a five-year plan of expansion of dollars to bilingual and francophone programs would be brought into place. Two task forces were announced, supposedly to report in time for this April’s budget, which we did not see.

Direction jeunesse has asked for three francophone colleges in the province. Fédération des élèves du secondaire franco-ontarien has done the same, as has l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario, and the Conseil de l’éducation franco-ontarien in March also had a consensus regarding this.

Members of the Liberal caucus will know that their own conference recently in Ottawa passed a motion supporting a francophone college in eastern Ontario.

I would say it is time for this to take place. At the same time as we wait for this to happen, we are seeing that Niagara College and Sheridan College are actually cutting back on programs for francophones, of which there is a dearth in southwestern Ontario. It is really time the cabinet and the Liberal government of Ontario finally put some community colleges under the direction of the French community to run on their own for their own students, so that finally those students will get the same kind of education that anglophone students have expected as a right in Ontario.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), but it actually applies to most of the government ministers. This government’s shoddy record and arrogant attitude about responding to inquiries in Orders and Notices continues.

I asked the minister on December 15, 1987 -- and that was so long ago now that he may have forgotten about it -- to provide the costs for the new furniture and television sets for the offices of all ministers, their staff, and all members of the Legislature since June 1985.

His interim answer, dated December 29, 1987, in case he has forgotten -- it is such a long time ago -- was, “The ministry requires additional time to provide the information required by the question. The answer should be available on or about February 29, 1988.”

It is now May 19, 1988, and I still do not have a reply to the original question I asked five months ago. If the minister’s strategy is to offend me by not providing this information, his strategy is not working. If his strategy is to anger me, his strategy is not working. But if his strategy is to keep this information from the public, then I must say his strategy is certainly working very well. But there is a serious flaw in his strategy and that is the fact that the people of Ontario have a right to know how this government is spending taxpayers’ money at a time when it has plucked $1.3 billion from their purses and their wallets. It is shameful and disgusting.

ONTARIO FOOD

Mr. Dietsch: Since my election, I have been consulting with members over the use of Ontario food products here in the Legislature and have received a favourable response. I have recently received a survey circulated by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which asks questions concerning the legislative dining room and cafeteria. It is my feeling that Ontario boasts countless Ontario food products of excellent quality: wines, fruit juices, fruits, vegetables and cheese, for example. We, as members, should be supportive of this industry.

I believe strongly that Ontario wines and juices should be used exclusively at all Legislative Assembly and government functions, as well as listed exclusively on the wine list and menu in the legislative dining room. The same applies to fruit juices being served in the cafeteria.

Second, Ontario food products such as fruits and vegetables should be used exclusively, served within the cafeteria, legislative dining room and all other functions, when in season.

Third, the menu used in the legislative dining room should feature the Foodland Ontario symbol beside each menu item that boasts Ontario food products and establish a county or region day whereby different food products from different counties or regions would be featured each week.

I urge all members, if they have not already done so, to complete these questionnaires and incorporate these ideas, or if they have already done so, to send a letter of support and show by example for all to see that good things do grow in Ontario.

1340

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Farnan: The development industry is responding to the call of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for a world-class Ontario. The Premier will be pleased to hear that the development industry is building a world-class community in Oakville. This advertisement from last Saturday’s Star has homes for $309,000. It is interesting to note that this requires a simple down payment of $46,500 and an annual income of over $100,000.

This is a tragedy, when we read the housing sections of newspaper and we find an overabundance of world-class living accommodation, while for ordinary Ontario families a much more modest, affordable home is still unavailable. Surely the Premier and this government must get their priorities right. Affordable housing is what is needed, and not world-class living.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before we go on with the routine proceedings, I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing in the Speaker’s gallery a member of the National Assembly of Quebec, the Minister of Municipal Affairs responsible for housing, the Honourable André Bourbeau.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CORPORATIONS INCOME TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENT

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I advised members on November 18, 1987, that I would seek further advice concerning the feasibility of a corporations income tax collection agreement with the federal government. I have now received the report by Professor Harry Kitchen of Trent University, and I now table it in the Legislature.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Did Harry do that? Good man.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We paid him for it; a very good report.

Mr. Speaker: Any responses?

Mr. B. Rae: I thought I would read the report before making a reply to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

RESPONSE

CORPORATIONS INCOME TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENT

Mr. Harris: In view of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has not read the report yet and is not prepared to comment on it, it is very difficult for us to comment, other than to perhaps --

Hon. Mr. Elston: That never stopped you before.

Mr. B. Rae: Oh, he’s got five minutes.

Mr. Callahan: It gives you greater latitude.

Mr. Harris: I have not said anything wrong so far. There are some who say that members of the opposition, in performing their critical role of being in opposition and criticizing, never have anything nice to say. We on this side of the House have been very critical, particularly in the area of reports that are commissioned, paid for by taxpayers -- I am going to be a while now; I think I will do up my jacket and try to do this right -- and then hidden from the public domain, hidden from the eyes of the media, hidden from the Legislature.

We have had example after example of this. A lot of them were reports that were done before the election that did not make the government look quite so good, so they sat on them for two, four, six months, in some cases nine or 10 months. It probably would be appropriate, given that there have been hundreds of examples of this by various ministers, the Office of the Premier and the Treasurer’s office in the past, at least to congratulate the Treasurer. He has acknowledged he just received the report. He has not read the doggone thing yet, and he is actually going to table it today without knowing what is in it.

When you look at the terms of reference of the report, it is one of those reports that is not likely to be very controversial as far as anything the government is bungling or hiding or covering up is concerned. None the less, it may be an example for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and other ministers to follow. When they pay for these reports with public dollars, they should be tabled right away. We should all get an opportunity to look at them at the same time, without the normal vetting they go through in a ministry and a minister’s office and, of course, the concealing and hiding of documents from public view.

I think it is fair that, in my own inimitable style, I congratulate the Treasurer on tabling this report today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to ask a question to the Deputy Premier. I ask him to cast his mind back to the summer of 1987, in fact to August 31, when, I am sure he will remember, after a cabinet meeting the Minister of Skills Development at that time announced a major program. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party, and now the Premier, announced a program on August 31, 1987, on the question of apprenticeship, as no doubt the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will recall some 10 days before the meeting with the voters on September 10, so perhaps we are entitled to look at that date as one having some significance.

Some very specific commitments were made to working families and women with respect to the future of apprenticeship programs.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: In light of that very specific promise made by the Premier, I wonder if the Treasurer can explain why, in a cabinet submission dated April 27, 1988, which is before cabinet, the Ministry of Skills Development would say as follows:

“The Ministry of Skills Development has not been allocated the resources originally requested to implement the initiatives. The ministry wishes to inform cabinet of the implications of that decision, to put forward new options for proceeding and to seek guidance on these options”?

I wonder if the Treasurer can explain why it is that several months after a promise made by the Premier, which was to take effect in January, there is still no such program?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not think it is appropriate that I comment on a cabinet document. Having said that, in general terms I think the honourable member would be aware that there have been instances in the history of the province where commitments made by leaders of governments and even leaders of the opposition are not kept in a timetable that suits everyone, and that there are in fact commitments that sometimes take weeks, even months, before they are fully committed.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me be quite specific. The Premier made some very specific commitments, particularly to women. He announced, first of all, that particular dollars would be spent; they have not been spent. He announced that certain programs would be started; they have not been started. He announced that changes would take effect in apprenticeships for women; that has not happened.

Is the Treasurer aware of the fact that there are three options before cabinet, two of which mean that the province will be breaking the promise that it made on August 31 to the women of this province? The government was committed to 5,000 women training in apprenticeship programs by 1991-92. It now appears that promise is going to be broken very specifically by this government.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I ask the Deputy Premier, if it was good enough for an election promise on August 31, 1987, good enough to buy the Liberals votes and get them elected, why is it not good enough for the women of this province when they are waiting for the government to keep its commitment?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not get my blood coursing in response to the instant indignation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), which he cranks up every day. It does not even seem to make his face flush either. He is getting quite used to it.

I say again, I am not going to comment on a cabinet document. That goes without saying. I am not even going to comment further about it, other than to say that the Premier is highly respected and well known for keeping his commitments in an orderly and fiscally responsible manner. If the Leader of the Opposition says otherwise, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Rather than dealing with that particular document, perhaps the Treasurer will explain to us why it is that none of the $14 million that was promised for these programs -- most of which, as the news release of August 31 says, were to be implemented by January 1988 -- has been spent and where the government’s commitment on apprenticeship has gone?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It might have been wise for me to refer the whole matter to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling), since it is not possible for me to report to the honourable member what the status of any changes in skills development or apprenticeship programs happens to be. Perhaps the honourable member, having pursued it on a different tack in the first two questions in this area, might, when the official opposition goes to its second official question, direct the question to another minister.

1350

HOME CARE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will no doubt have been aware of the dialogue that has taken place in this House between our party and other parties and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), in which the minister has stated on so many occasions that the reason the government is cutting back on hospitals is that it wants to make sure there is funding for other health care initiatives.

I wonder if the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) perhaps could comment on comments that are now being made by those working in the social service field in the Waterloo region, who have just heard from his ministry that their request for a real home care program in the region that will do a service to the community has been rejected, that the budget they have proposed to his ministry has been turned down and that, as a result, the administrator of the region’s home care program is saying, and I quote: “There might be some people that might have to stay in hospital longer.”

I wonder if the minister can explain just what is going on when one minister says, “We are cutting back on hospitals because we want to provide care in the community,” and when his ministry is saying, “We are cutting back on care in the community so people are going to have to stay in hospital”?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member would be aware of the fact that there has been a significant growth in home care opportunities in a number of communities in the province -- 18 to be exact. Waterloo region was one of the first in the province to access this growth. The difficulty we are facing is that the growth is greater than we had anticipated.

Over the last two years, we have not only met the original increase, but we have also met the increase above and beyond what these municipalities had asked us for. That is part of the record and easily checked. However, this year, we have indicated to them that there has to be a limit to the amount of the increase, given the resources we have. There is an ongoing discussion between the Minister of Health and my ministry, which I am sure would not surprise the honourable Leader, as to how we can integrate our services to avoid what he described happening.

I expect that some time within the next two months I will be able to share that with the leader of the third party. but right now, the process is ongoing. In fact, it is expanding. There is extra money in it this year, but it is not possible in the short run to expand it as quickly as some of the regions want us to.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister should know that the budget for Waterloo region, which they say is necessary to keep people at home and out of hospital, has been cut by his ministry by some $3 million. As a result of that cut, they say, and I quote: “These cuts mean the number of nursing visits and homemaker hours per client would be cut down, a waiting list would be imposed and nearly 11 full-time staff positions due to start this year would be eliminated.”

Does the minister not realize that what we are getting from this government is gobbledegook, that we have people who are in hospital, who cannot get out of hospital because there is nowhere else for them to go, that we have people at home who are getting sicker and who are having to go to hospital because there is no care for them at home, and that both he and the Minister of Health are doing the same thing? They are both cutting back, they are making sick people sicker and they are making sure the hospital system is going to be overcrowded. That is what they are doing. That is what the ministry is doing and that is what the chaotic planning on their part is causing.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: To put it mildly, what the honourable leader has just described is an exaggeration of the reality that is out there. As I am sure he genuinely knows and understands, the word “cut” is often used in different ways. In this situation, as in all of our programs, there has been an increase in the resources that are made available. The term “cut” is often used when the amount of the increase is not what someone requests. I can cite for him a number of programs where that happens.

In fact, in Waterloo region, as in many other municipalities in this province, the number of people who are no longer in hospitals but are being serviced in homes has increased every single year since this government has been in office and it will increase again this year. The fact that we are not able to meet every request of every municipality for every program is an inevitable reality of the total resources available to the government as well as to any ministry, but there has not been a cut. There may not have been the increase that was requested -- I do not have the exact figures -- but I can assure the honourable leader that there was an increase in that budget, as there is in all other budgets of my ministry, to every single agency that my ministry deals with.

Mr. B. Rae: If the government does not meet the needs and it has waiting lists that are growing, it is in a situation that is creating problems for people that are going to be resolved only by more of them having to stay longer in institutions. The minister should know that.

Can the minister comment on the fact that the director of the region’s community support services, Greg Sullivan, directly contradicts what the minister is saying with respect to the impact on people. He says, “There are people whose health may deteriorate more rapidly.” These are Greg Sullivan’s words; they are not my words. He says:

“For example, a client with emphysema, living at home, would have regular visits from a physiotherapist, who would check his condition and teach him exercises to improve his health. If those visits were less frequent, his health could deteriorate without detection to the point at which he’d have to go to hospital.”

That is the impact, on a very human level, on one individual because of what the ministry is doing. Can the minister tell us what his justification is for the Minister of Health saying, “We are going to be doing more in the community,” and for his saying, “It would be nice if we could do more in the community, but we do not have the dollars to do so”? When is the minister going to get his act together over there and realize that what he is doing is hurting people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: By the particular choice of words the honourable leader just used, there were a number -- and he can go back and read it himself -- of “ifs” and “maybes” in there, and that is true for every single service program certainly that I operate and, I suspect, that my colleague the Minister of Health operates. That is one of the realities of everything we provide.

The point is that far more people in Ontario today and over the last three years have received and are receiving service than were before. We do not have the resources to provide every service to every individual for every request. I will quite frankly admit that, and the honourable leader knows that is the fact, but to say we are keeping people in hospitals when they do not need to be there, that we are driving people into hospitals when they do not need to be there, is not accurate to the same extent it was before. That has changed significantly. But I would certainly point out that the day will not likely come very soon when we can meet every need of every single individual in this province. We simply do not have the resources to do that, particularly when we are being told we are collecting too many --

Mr. Speaker: It seems like a fairly complete answer.

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Yesterday we found out from the Touche Ross report that the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa has been operating with a surplus for the last six years. This last tax year of 1987-88, they have been operating with a $1.2-million deficit, which the minister refuses to fund. We find from the report that $900,000 of that deficit is uncontrollable.

One of the five programs that are unfunded and unapproved by the ministry deals with chemotherapy for cancer patients. This cost the Riverside Hospital $53,000 last year, and the ministry refuses to fund chemotherapy for these cancer patients.

Is the minister suggesting that the Riverside Hospital in Ottawa should discharge patients who need to receive chemotherapy so that they could try to gain admittance to another hospital in Ottawa, when those other hospitals are very much overcrowded with regard to providing this service? Does the minister want the Riverside Hospital to cut off chemotherapy treatment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I met recently in Ottawa with all of the hospital board chairmen, and it was a very good meeting. We discussed the fact that not every hospital can be everything to everyone and that they must work together, and the board chairmen assured me they wished to do that.

The figures the member presented in the House yesterday that are in the Touche Ross report include all revenues from all sources, including the bailouts from previous years from the ministry. He is quite correct. There have been identified a number of programs that have not been approved by the ministry. There are a number of programs in the Ottawa area that have gone through the district health council and are waiting approval. What we are saying is that the ministry must approve programs before hospitals offer them. They simply cannot start programs and then give us the bill.

1400

Mr. Sterling: It is a little difficult to be calm when you think of a patient who has undergone bowel surgery and there has been a discovery of cancer during that particular operation and that patient cannot be treated to the fullest extent and receive chemotherapy from that hospital.

I want to bring forward another example with regard to this whole matter. The palliative care unit of the Riverside Hospital has a special program to provide intravenous feeding for patients who cannot feed themselves. The Ministry of Health guidelines, I understand, provide hospitals that have 35 cases or more a year with the funding with regard to this program. Last year the Riverside Hospital had 34 cases, one under the limit.

Mr. Speaker: So the question would be?

Mr. Sterling: They incurred a cost of $43,000. Does the minister suggest that the Riverside Hospital discharge a patient who needs this kind of intravenous feeding, which is available in other hospitals in Ottawa, just because it falls below a certain magic number?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What we are doing in the review of some 22 hospitals is trying to determine the root causes of chronic deficits. What we are intending to do is make sure that hospitals are appropriately and fairly funded for the services which have been approved by the ministry. Where we find there are programs the ministry has approved and not adequately resourced, we will do that. Where we find there are opportunities for hospitals to work together and rationalize services, to make most efficient and effective use of resources within a community, we will encourage that.

Riverside is one of those hospitals under review. I am not prepared today to discuss the specific details of any particular program, but the general principle that says you must have approval from the ministry before you start a new program and before you bring on additional staffing is one that I think has common sense and is good planning.

Mr. Sterling: Again, it is very difficult when a patient must go on intravenous feeding to say to the relatives of that particular patient, “We cannot feed this relative because we do not have the appropriate funding from the Ministry of Health.”

I want to bring up one more example dealing with the Riverside Hospital. Last year they took on the responsibility of performing 180 autopsy cases for local coroners in the area. This is due to the fact that no other hospital in Ottawa would accept the responsibility for performing those autopsies. This resulted in a net deficit of about $60,000 for a program unfunded by the minister and her colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). This hospital, if it is to live within its budget by May 28, as the minister defined it must, must cut off this service. They will have to cease performing --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Sterling: -- autopsies by June 30 if the minister or the Solicitor General does not give them funding.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Sterling: Does the minister not see how ridiculous this May 28 funding deadline really is? What she is asking hospitals to do is cut off access to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat? The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We are always prepared to review requests from hospitals for needed services, particularly those which are deemed to be essential in communities. I am encouraging hospitals as well to work very closely with their district health councils to prioritize those needs within the community.

I would say to the member that it jeopardizes and places in uncertainty those programs and those hospitals that go through the planning process before they start programs and it is unfair to the majority of the hospitals in this province that come before the district health council and make their case and come to the ministry and get approval first. If we just go ahead and continually pick up deficits, we will have chaos. We must have good planning and approval before we have hospitals spending resources they do not have. That is fiscal responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We are always prepared to look at the requests from hospitals. I point out to the member that we have not cut one budget. What we are doing is increasing budgets, and the Riverside Hospital budget has increased every single year way above the level of inflation.

Mr. Harris: A budget is a budget is a budget, except when it comes to the government. It can spend billions of dollars all throughout.

EXPENDITURE SAVINGS AND CONSTRAINTS

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. In response to a question on Monday from the member for York East (Ms. Hart), with regard to the $500-million restraint programs that were in the budget -- in other words, there is a line item that says, “Here is what we are going to spend but we will not spend this $500 million” -- the minister indicated that these savings have already been identified by respective ministers in submissions that were made prior to the budget.

He was quite clear in his response that these savings have been identified and a good number of them were well known before the budget was brought down. If that is true, it now appears that the line items in the budget are factually incorrect. I wonder if the minister is prepared to share with the House today the information that identifies those ministries and where the cuts will be made.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is correct that I indicated that very many of the ministers who are with me here in cabinet have identified areas they are reviewing for administrative efficiencies and otherwise. If the text of the report that is in front of the honourable member indicates that the numbers have all been identified, I must apologize because that, of course, is not correct.

But I can indicate to my honourable friend that the process of identifying areas where administrative savings and other savings can be found is being very much analysed and examined now by Management Board staff. With the assistance of my ministerial colleagues and others, we expect to be putting together a plan shortly which will identify the areas in which savings can be found.

Mr. Harris: Let me quote the words the minister said. He said, “There are a number of ministers who are already indicating that certainly they have within their own environments ways in which they will provide us with assistance.” Then he says, “Each one of the ministers in his or her own submissions in the run-up to budget time has indicated where he or she would be able to find, in a very real way through good management decisions, a good part of the money that we are looking for.”

The minister did not say he had identified the whole $500 million, but he did say, cumulatively, a good part. What I would like to --

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, that is right, so you were wrong.

Mr. Harris: I never said he identified the whole $500 million.

Hon. Mr. Elston: You were wrong. You said I did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I did not say he had identified the --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Harris: The basis for the minister’s answer on Monday was that each one of the ministers had identified where, in a very real way, he or she was going to be able to find a good part of the money. Could he share with the House that specific information he gave to us on Monday? Which ministers identified where they were going to be able to find the money? Surely we are entitled to that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I had already indicated that all my ministerial colleagues have identified places where they feel there can be administrative changes which will provide us with savings. All of those ministers are well known to the member, but if he wishes, I can list them: the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- and I can tell the member that each one of my ministerial colleagues has been extremely helpful in providing us with an examination of his or her ministry.

All of my ministerial colleagues are cooperating to provide good, sound administrative savings for the budgetary process which the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) introduced here. As the member knows, all of the people will be participating with us in finding where those savings are. I cannot do more than list every one of my colleagues.

Mr. Harris: We know what happened last year. The minister waited until the end of the year, and then everybody who underspent said: “Oh, look, what good boys are we. We found these cuts. These people cut back.” Nobody cut back. They could not figure out a way to spend the money fast enough, in spite of the fact that a number of others overspent more than enough, so the government was still well over budget.

The other thing that happened last year is that all the government services, the ones for the fat government, went up; all the services for the people are where the cuts were made.

1410

Does the minister think it is responsible, when he is planning his budget, to have a ministry come to him and say, “Look, I want this amount of dollars, but I am pre-identifying for you I can cut here”? Why would the minister give them the money if they already know where they are going to save the money in the first place’? Does he think that is responsible budgeting, and if in fact they do not know, why does he say he already knows where he is going to find cuts?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The process about which I spoke was an identification in the prebudget submissions of areas where we felt there are administrative opportunities available to us. It may take some time to implement all of those, but it is not only the intention but in fact also the will of this government to find the savings which were identified by the Treasurer when he tabled the budget.

I just have to indicate one thing that this honourable House leader would, I am sure, like to identify for the public. That is the fact that we in the government are still awaiting the budgets which are supposed to be coming down for the Legislative Assembly, which include items like the $100,000-and-some that we paid to bail out the third party because of the post-election chaos due to its overspending in its budgets.

Also, it may be of interest to find out that in fact there are certain enrichments being planned for the opposition parties which in fact will pay them more than the combined budget for the 64 back-bench members of the Liberal Party.

It seems to me that if they really wish to talk about bloated bureaucracies, they should take a look in a mirror, because it seems to me those people are not only holding up our budget process, we do not even know what the bottom line for this thing is. I am telling them, they can also look in the mirror.

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr. Charlton: In view of the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) and the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer has been here in this Legislature from the beginning of the debate around Ontario Hydro’s nuclear facilities. As a matter of fact, he has been on his feet a number of times raising very serious concerns about the escalating costs of the Darlington project.

The Treasurer will be aware that in today’s media it was announced that Darlington has suffered another cost overrun of $528 million. Add to that the ever-escalating costs of retubing all of Hydro’ s reactors at an earlier stage than was originally expected, and knowing from the hearings in 1986 that Treasury and Economics keeps a very close watch on Hydro capital spending, can the Treasurer tell us what the government view is of the cost overruns that have occurred and the cost implications of the two failures in terms of the future of the nuclear program in Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The “failures” the honourable member is talking about is the sagging of the calandria tubes somewhat prematurely. It was expected that the reactors at Pickering would continue operating for about another five years without the extensive and expensive renovation to brace them up by replacement, which is a very costly operation. The fact that this is happening about five years prematurely is serious, but it is certainly built into the general expenditure and maintenance of the Candu reactors, of which we are all so proud.

As far as Darlington is concerned, naturally the overruns are a matter of special interest and concern, but I think we have to be aware that this has been, for probably three years and longer, the largest single construction project in North America and certainly one of the most highly intricate technologically. In many respects, it is a marvellous achievement of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Ontario Hydro, which have developed this resource.

Whatever you think about its future, certainly no one can in any way criticize the technology that has been developed. We are not talking about its general utilization, although a time may come when we would want to discuss that in more detail.

Mr. Charlton: The Treasurer should know he is incorrect that the costs of the tube failures have been built into the overall operating costs of the Candu reactors. In fact, in his release of the nuclear safety study some weeks ago, Kenneth Hare made a particular point of identifying the tube failure problem as a source of potential economic crisis for Ontario Hydro because it has no solution to that problem.

Because Ontario Hydro is still using old numbers in its demand-supply planning strategy for the future of Ontario, old numbers related to its nuclear plants and old numbers that omit the costs of the tube failures, can the Treasurer assure this House that, in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Energy, the select committee on energy will be provided with up-to-date data on nuclear costs, so that in our review of that document we can reasonably assess the accuracy of Hydro’s findings?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the actual cost associated with the speeded-up renovation of the tubes, which had not failed, is about $800 million, which is a colossal sum in anybody’s list but, in relation to the value and productivity of those reactors, is manageable.

I hope the honourable member is not going to refer to failures in this particular reference, because failure did occur when a similar problem in the reactors at Pickering resulted in a split and a leakage; certainly that was a failure. In this instance, the timing of the renovation avoided failure, and I am not informed that the technology is not correctable, because I personally believe that it is.

To answer the second part of the honourable member’s question, I would say without any doubt that Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy will provide correct and up-to-date figures, because we have a good deal of confidence and expectation in the work of the committee the honourable member sits on, which is represented by all parties.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last night the colossal waste, bureaucracy and inept management of the Ministry of Housing in Ontario was again emphasized at a seminar that was held by the Toronto Home Builders’ Association. Yesterday the Minister of Housing could not tell us exactly what constitutes affordable housing, and she would not admit, or probably does not even know, just what affordability is.

I would like to ask the minister, is there some semblance of a clear answer that we can get today on how many new housing units will be built in this current calendar year?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There are a variety of sources of information for the housing projections built in the current calendar year. The projections made by Clayton Research suggest that the number of housing units will be significantly lower than last year but none the less one of the biggest building years in the history of the province.

Mr. Cousens: You know, we are getting the same kind of failure on the part of this minister, who is generating a lot of heat over there, but so far we have not seen any light. We have learned one thing, though: that the Liberal government is famous for making promises and is particularly great and gifted at breaking those promises. All told, this government has made more than 30 different housing promises and policy announcements since taking office. They have promised anywhere from 102,000 to 150,000 housing units.

If the minister is interested in trying to redeem herself, I ask the minister again to tell this House specifically how many new units will be built this year; not how many units have been promised, but how many units will actually be built by the end of this calendar year. Answer it, for a change.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I was referring to the projections made by Clayton Research on the production of units in the private house-building market. If the member is asking me how many units are going to be produced by us and by our ministry, I can tell him that we had promised to build 25,000 units over the next three to five years. In our budget, we promised to build 30,000 more over that period of three to five years, and we are working actively with the nonprofit sector to make sure they are built.

Just today I took my colleague Mr. Bourbeau, who is the Minister of Housing for Quebec. and his colleagues, who are sitting in the visitors’ gallery, around with me to see many projects in the nonprofit and co-op sector that have been built and that are in the process of being built in this province. I invite the honourable member opposite to come with me to see as many of them as he would like to come and see, and to see the people who are living in them and who are at home in them.

I would like him to take me to the number of projects that are being built to house people who need help in housing in his riding of Markham, because I will match him 10 to 1, 100 to 1, for the ones we are building.

1420

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister is aware that the special-education legislation, which was introduced through Bill 82, has been in place for several years and was generally welcomed both by the parents and by the school boards. Nevertheless, in the implementation, a number of problems have come to the fore and I understand he is presently looking at possible amendments to the legislation.

In the interest of the best possible changes, I am wondering whether the minister can share with this House what the main concerns are that have been identified and whether he can give us an indication as to the direction in which he wants to move himself.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to thank the member for his question and for giving me notice of his intent to ask the question today, because I know it is a matter that very many members take a great interest in.

We have indeed been reviewing the requirements of the Education Act as they relate to special education in this province. We have been considering concerns such as the rights and privileges of trainable retarded pupils under the act, questions as to who has rights to be considered by a board’s identification and placement review committee’s assessment under the regulations, the appeal mechanisms and whatever improvements we could come forward with, special-education advisory committees and their membership provisions and many other improvements as well.

We certainly continue to encourage school boards in the development of their special-ed programs in the provision of a wide and fair range of placements for all their exceptional students.

Mr. Daigeler: I thank the minister for this information, which I think is going to be helpful, not just for the members here but also for anyone who is looking at the special-education provisions at this time.

As a supplementary, can the minister advise this House when he might introduce amended legislation and whether in this process he intends to put forward some consultation paper that will further improve the possibility to have input into this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot give the member a precise date today. It had been my intent to be able to table the amendments prior to the end of this session. We have submitted and consulted with every board of education in this province and the very many interested client groups and parents’ associations. We have received over 240 submissions. We are analysing that input and will be coming forward once we complete that process.

CIVIL SERVANTS’ CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. The minister will be aware that his closest cabinet counterpart in the federal government, namely, the President of the Treasury Board, has implemented conflict-of-interest rules for senior public servants that prohibit for one year a former public servant from acting in an advocacy capacity or even providing consulting services to outside-interest bodies that are dealing with the government.

Similar conflict-of-interest rules have been passed by United States jurisdictions and by other provinces. Can the minister tell the House why such provisions are not in place yet in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that the result of the stories generated through some reports earlier this week -- at least I think they were earlier this week -- have drawn our attention to examining and taking a look at what is in fact in our directives and guidelines. I will tell the honourable gentleman that suggestions about what happens in the federal scene and other locations are of interest to us at Management Board.

Mr. Philip: Why does it take two cases such as, recently, Don Reid, former director of the loan and trust corporations branch, Ministry of Financial Institutions -- who took a position of executive vice-president at Morgan Trust -- and Rod McLeod, until recently Deputy Minister of the Environment -- who is now acting in an advocacy capacity for Algoma Steel, a company presently under investigation by that very ministry he was deputy minister of -- to finally have this minister come to look at a situation which we in the opposition have been calling on this government to look at for so many years?

When are we getting conflict-of-interest legislation for senior civil servants and why has the government neglected to act until now’?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I guess the first recollection I have of coming into this House in 1981 was of a bit of a furore that was generated by the activity of a then just-past minister in taking up a role of advocating on behalf of some people he used to work with. It generated an awful lot of interest at that point with respect to the roles of former ministers, and there was something done about it.

It seems to me that what we have now is a considerable amount of attention drawn to the fact that there may be problems with our current guidelines and directives with respect to senior bureaucrats. That having occurred, we are looking at the other places the member has identified. I have not yet seen the things that are happening in the United States, but we are certainly aware of some of the things that are happening federally, because that in fact was part of the report which came over the airwaves.

I can tell the member that we had not acted because probably it had not seemed to be a problem to this point in time, although it may have just gone unnoticed or whatever. I have not until now seen the difficulties the member has enumerated. I think it is our intention to examine our directives in light of some of the concerns legitimately raised by the honourable member opposite, which I know he takes very seriously in his role in the standing committee on public accounts, previously and now as chairman, as do all of us.

RENT REGISTRY

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Housing, who is painfully aware of the critical levels of bureaucratic backlogging which have occurred in the three main areas of her Residential Rent Regulation Act, Bill 51. She is aware that there are critical backlogs in the applications for rent review, in the area of appeals of those hearings or awards and also in the area of legal rent verification under the rent registry.

Could the minister advise this House specifically of the number of tenants in Ontario today who have received notification of the legal rents that they should be paying, as recorded in the rent registry?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I do not have the exact number for the member. I can tell him that there are, as he knows, 24,000 applications pending, and those represent either individual apartments or, in many cases, whole-building reviews with a large number of tenants related to each one. I do not want to give the member a number that is not precisely exact; I will give him an exact one later on.

Mr. Jackson: We are not talking about whole buildings; we are talking about specific units. We understand that there are approximately one million units in Ontario in buildings with more than six units and that in fact the rent registry has provided verification notices for just under 100,000. The ministry has a critical backlog now in the rent registry, so that tenants in Ontario are unaware exactly what their legal rent should be.

The minister says she is acting in a judicious manner with this problem, but in fact she is operating in a somewhat discriminatory manner in this regard. I have a letter here from --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Jackson: -- a Charles Hopper, who wrote to the minister on November 17. He waited four months for a response from the minister. I have another letter for an opposition MPP --

Mr. Speaker: And your supplementary question would be?

Mr. Jackson: My question is, regarding the letter to an opposition MPP who waited half as long for the minister’s response with all these backlogs in the ministry, why are some tenants in Ontario being dealt with differently from other tenants in this province by her ministry when it has such a backlog?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In fact, we are dealing with tenants as fairly as we possibly can, and that is one of the reasons for the time this is taking. In the rent registry, what we have are all the units in the province that are in buildings that have six units or more, which are being processed through the registry, and we are sending information to tenants as expeditiously as possible. That number is close to 600,000 in the province.

It seems to me that the concern of the member about the time it takes to answer letters is another matter entirely. Letters are answered as quickly as possible by the ministry. The letters that come from members of the public are often much more detailed and involve much more work for us to answer them as appropriately and fairly as possible, and we do that.

1430

LIQUOR LICENCE

Ms. Collins: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. My question pertains to the sale of duty-free alcohol at the Hamilton Airport in Mount Hope in my riding.

As the minister is aware, the federal government has already licensed a facility for the sale of other duty-free goods at the airport. The minister is also aware that the same duty-free facility is now seeking a provincial liquor licence for the sale of duty-free alcohol. My question is, why has the Liquor Control Board of Ontario not processed and granted this company’s application?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for her question, because it raises a problem that we are attempting to resolve with the federal government and with the Ministry of Transport.

I believe the honourable member would know that in a number of similar situations with duty-free shops at land border crossings, a process was entered into between the Ministry of Transport, the government of Ontario and the LCBO whereby there was a public tendering process. At the end of that process the licence was given not only by the Ministry of Transport for a duty-free shop but also for a liquor licence through the LCBO.

Regrettably, that has not occurred in the Hamilton situation, where, as the honourable member points out, an individual is now running a duty-free shop and only latterly has come forward and said, “Now what about a liquor licence?”

I can tell the honourable member that the LCBO is attempting to work with the federal government in an effort to get the same kind of public tendering process in the airport duty-free stores as we have had at the land border points. Those discussions are continuing.

Ms. Collins: I am concerned that passengers on international flights at Hamilton Airport will not enjoy the same services available at similar airports in Ontario. Given that this facility is the only duty-free shop at the airport, and given the other specific circumstances of this case, would the minister consider granting the licence to this outlet?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That is certainly something that is an option we face, but it is not one that I wish to pursue.

The honourable member is correct, and I applaud her sensitivity. As her own community attempts to establish its airport for international travel, certainly the people from the Hamilton region who will be using that airport deserve the same kind of rights that other international airports have. But I suggest to my friend that there is an important process here whereby there ought to be a clear and open public tendering where all those who might want to be involved in the tender would understand what they are getting: not just a duty-free store with nonalcoholic beverages but also, at the end of the day, a liquor licence, because very clearly, the involvement of liquor in a duty-free store may make the tender much more attractive to some.

I would suggest that perhaps the federal government may want to approach the company which now has the tender and see if we can reopen the process and thereby get this matter resolved.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. For the last 72 hours, the Michigan state police have been undertaking a blitz surveillance of Ontario transport trucks crossing at the Sarnia and Windsor crossing points. In the first day of the blitz at Sarnia’s Blue Water Bridge, 35 of 44 trucks -- that is 80 per cent -- were hauled off the road because of safety violations. Almost half the truck drivers were unfit because of either fatigue or impairment.

Can the minister tell the House how the people and the environment of this province are being protected by his ministry when the majority of the transport trucks are shown to be so blatantly unsafe?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank the member for her question. The inspections that are taking place right now are the result of an agreement -- they have been going on for three days, including today -- between 25 American states and certain Canadian provinces.

The member has identified a problem that we have been addressing or attempting to address in this House for some time. Highway safety and truck traffic on the highways are of paramount interest to me as the minister and to this government, and I think we have demonstrated that. Perhaps the honourable member might be helpful in persuading her colleagues to allow us to proceed with the Truck Transportation Act.

Mr. B. Rae: That provides less regulation than we have now.

Mrs. Grier: That is a complete copout and certainly does nothing to address the problem that is being identified. The point is that the problems being picked up in this surveillance at the border points are problems that exist all throughout the province and that are not being picked up by the minister’s checkpoints. Is the minister going to see that the safety checkpoints and the weigh scales in this province are manned on a 24-hour-a-day basis, seven days a week, so that these violations can be picked up within Ontario, not just when they leave to take their problems somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member should be aware that, indeed, in both Sarnia and Windsor at our truck inspection stations, the same actions are taking place, and one of the bills we have before the House, which received first reading in December, deals specifically with those issues. Members of that caucus have denied that being passed in this Legislature.

NOISE BARRIERS

Mrs. Marland: My question also is for the Minister of Transportation. I would like to ask the minister a question regarding the two Queen Elizabeth Way noise barrier walls which he promised the residents of Mississauga during the last election campaign in a ministry release. I would also indicate to the minister that I will be forwarding his response to those residents who are awaiting some action, because I have been writing to the minister and not getting answers.

Will the minister tell my constituents today when his ministry will begin construction on the 2.1-kilometre barrier on the south side of the highway east of Southdown Road and the other 1.2-kilometre barrier on the south side of the Queen Elizabeth Way west of Highway 10, as promised in his press release of August 31?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member asked me this question some time ago, and I gave her the same answer. If we promised those barriers to be put in place this construction season, they will be put in place. I keep my word. If the member has not heard from me before today, it was because I was talking to her mayor.

Mrs. Marland: I am very encouraged to hear that the minister will keep his word. I think it would be very good, however, if he would consider answering the correspondence by putting his promises in words in a letter in response to the questions.

It is true that I have asked him before, but I asked the minister again today because his previous answer was not clear, it was not a clear commitment. In fact, in his press release the minister said that “this most extensive undertaking will see the 2.1-kilometre barrier erected,” and he goes on to name those locations. The interpretation that all of us got is that the project is a go and was budgeted for last year, and yet our knowledge of what is going on in the ministry is that the design and function stage has not even been begun yet.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would be aware that it is very early in the construction season. There are any number of projects within this ministry that have not physically started out on the roadway or wherever. As I have said to her repeatedly, when I get out of here I will go back to my office and finish answering my multitude of mail. We will keep the commitment that was made to her some time ago.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I could ask a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister perhaps is not aware, but there are a great many concerns that have been voiced by many workers who are affected by sections of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and they are awaiting word from the minister as to when they can expect some amendments and revisions to the act and when, in fact, we are going to see them.

I would like to ask the minister, can he tell us in the House today, if it is his intention to bring forward amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act before the end of June of this year?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is a good question and it is an important one. The simple answer I can give to the Leader of the Opposition is that my intentions today are the same as my intentions expressed over the past many months: that is, we are proceeding apace within the ministry and within the cabinet process to craft reforms that we think are going to make dramatic improvements to the worker compensation system. I expect to be in a position before the end of this session, even if this session ends on the last day of June, to introduce a piece of legislation for consideration by the House.

1440

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister were serious about wanting to get it through this year, he knows full well that it would be good for us to have a debate this spring, for it to go to committee and then for us to come back in the fall for final consideration.

The changes, which I know the minister is considering, are major; they affect literally hundreds of thousands of workers in this province, and they will impact directly on their pension levels, on their rights to rehabilitation and on their rights to reinstatement.

If we are going to have a real change in workers’ compensation for the benefit of workers, I would plead with the minister not to dump it on us at the last minute before the summer recess, but to give us an opportunity at least to have a discussion here prior to the recess so we can be assured that some kind of change will take place before the end of 1988.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am obviously not the one who controls the agenda of the House and the timing of business within this House, nor obviously am I going to determine how long this House sits.

What I should tell the Leader of the Opposition is simply this: Obviously, for me, it would have been politically expedient to introduce a bill somewhat sooner. I would have liked that. I had made the commitment. The entire world concerned with worker compensation issues has been anticipating that there would be a bill. I would have been delighted to be in a position today to introduce a bill.

The fact is that I have taken a route that I consider to be a wiser route; that is, a route that gives me more opportunity to do a more effective job of consultation with communities of all sorts that are concerned about these issues, including the injured worker community and the community particularly concerned about rights to vocational rehabilitation and rights to reinstatement, so that when a bill is finally presented, it will be the right bill for the right occasion, a bill that I believe will improve the system, as I said, in a dramatic way.

EDUCATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Correctional Services. I am wondering if the minister would be so kind as to indicate whether he has an estimated annual total cost of educating a young offender within any of the institutions in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is a pleasure to be up answering a question from the honourable member, who graces us with his presence in the House today.

I would be very pleased to give him a detailed account of what the expenses are in taking care of a young offender, because we have secure custody and open-custody facilities, we contract out with the boards of education to supply high school training in our facilities, we have different treatment in different facilities, and each of the different types of facility has various overhead costs.

It would be very difficult to give one ballpark figure and to say, “This is the cost of keeping a young offender,” but I would be quite pleased, and surely during the estimates period in the next couple of weeks, to give him all the details of all those different programs.

Mr. Cureatz: I am pleased that the minister has recognized my attendance here on Thursday. I would like to go back over past history when he was associated with another party to see what his attendance was in regard to being here in the third party in a time long ago.

In response to the minister’s answer, I want to point out to him that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), interestingly enough -- I say to “Bobby the Beach” Nixon over there, who is always too busy meditating his toes --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the honourable member is aware that the tradition of this House is to refer to other members by their constituency or their ministry.

Mr. Cureatz: I want to say to the Minister of Correctional Services that, interestingly enough, the Minister of Education seems to have a figure in regard to some of the problems in his colleague’s ministry. The Minister of Education has indicated that approximately $10.5 million was spent for the provision of educational programs in correctional facilities for approximately 1,450 pupils; that works out to roughly $7,000 per pupil annually. I want to say to the minister that in regard to other educational facilities across the province, that figure is substantially higher.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cureatz: Would the minister, first, please confirm in his investigations what the amount is, and second, assure this House that he will do his best to reduce that amount of money spent annually for students in regard to the correctional facilities?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question during the allotted time of question period.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions.

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition signed by members of my constituency as well as myself. It 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:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Kerrio, moved first reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, there is a lengthy explanation, but I am told by the minister that the amendments he is proposing to the act will allow the Ministry of Natural Resources to manage public lands in a manner consistent with the more active approach taken by this government and will enable all of us to better use our crown lands for the benefit of all Ontarians.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before calling the orders of the day, I would like to table the interim answers to questions 101, 124 and 127 and the final answers to questions 119, 123, 135, 136 and the responses to sessional papers P-7, P-16 and P-17 standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Tuesday, May 24].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BIG CEDAR ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Owen moved second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Big Cedar Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT OF ONTARIO ACT

Ms. Collins moved, on behalf of Ms. Hart, second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Chartered Institute of Marketing Management of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

1450

OSHAWA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Reville moved, on behalf of Mr. Breaugh, second reading of Bill Pr1O, An Act respecting the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

L F P MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACT

Mrs. Fawcett moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive L F P Management Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

Mr. Campbell moved second reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mr. Offer moved second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

HAMILTON CIVIC HOSPITALS ACT

Ms. Collins moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Hamilton Civic Hospitals.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

KINGSWAY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Mr. Cousens moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Kingsway General Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE ACT

Mr. Campbell moved second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the Ontario Municipal Management Institute.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MID-CONTINENT BOND CORPORATION, LIMITED ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Mr. M. C. Ray, second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act to revive Mid-Continent Bond Corporation, Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Mr. Epp, second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting The United Church of Canada and The Canada Conference The Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GENERAL HOSPITAL OF PORT ARTHUR ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Mr. Kozyra, second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting The General Hospital of Port Arthur.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Mr. Polsinelli, second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting The City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MACHIN MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Kanter moved second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act to revive Machin Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved second reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PROW YELLOWKNIFE GOLD MINES LTD. ACT

Mr. Kanter moved second reading of Pr38, An Act to revive Prow Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT

In the absence of Mr. Carrothers, Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Kanter moved second reading of Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Mr. Kanter moved third reading of Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

1504

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to beg the pardon of the House. When I read Bill Pr56, I was reading an earlier copy. I understand now from the sponsor of the bill that the section to which I objected has been struck from the bill. Therefore, I would like to suggest that we vote on third reading, in which case this party will be voting in favour thereof.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous agreement’?

Agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

WINDSOR UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Reycraft moved, on behalf of Mr. M. C. Ray, second reading of Bill Pr62, An Act respecting The Windsor Utilities Commission.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill Pr67, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

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.

Mrs. Cunningham: The debate was adjourned on May 9, and I would like to continue with my concluding observations on education at this point.

We were talking on May 9 about the government’s promises during the election in September. I would like to move on to the commitment, from as early as 1985, by this government to increase the provincial share of education costs to 60 per cent. Instead, of course, we all know by looking at the numbers that the provincial share is in fact declining. I think the public is coming to understand that this truly was just another election promise. And why should the local taxpayers be asked to pay more today because of the government’s unplanned, irresponsible promises?

In 1984-85, the total cost of education assumed by this province was 47.6 per cent. In 1988, although the boards of education across the province disagree with the Ministry of Education numbers, they still have the same conclusionary observations. The boards say that the provincial contribution is 42.7 per cent; the Ministry of Education says 44.9 per cent. It does not really matter how you look at it; it is much less than the almost 48 per cent that was being put towards education by the provincial government when in fact this party was the government. Instead of moving towards 60 percent, it is obvious that this government is moving downwards, towards 40 per cent. I would not want to be out there campaigning on that platform in the next provincial election.

By the way, having been in education for 14 years, I think it was a very unrealistic number for the Liberals to choose.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Are you spending more money, Dianne?

Mrs. Cunningham: In response to the question of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) with regard to talking about spending more money on education, just a little number: in 1986 the total percentage of provincial spending was 13.2 per cent. In a call to the minister’s government offices today, I was given the ministry’s own numbers. They tell me that in 1987-88 the total spending on education was 12.3 per cent, again going down.

The capital requests from school boards for 1989-90 total $1.7 billion and that of course was their hope and expectation for capital expenditures for a year from now. To spend approximately $900 million over three years, as suggested by the minister recently, will not begin to meet the demands of school boards. It sounds like a big number. It is a number they should be concerned about. I think it is a number they truly are concerned about. Nine hundred million dollars would not have covered the requests from last year, let alone a total request or plan for the next three years. I know, and they know, they will have to look at that. It is totally unrealistic.

1510

As we went door to door in the by-election recently in London North, the taxpayers were very much concerned about the taxes they were asked to pay. but the one thing they did expect was schools for their children, and that definitely is not an unrealistic desire by parents. They have always been there as long as we can remember. They may not be happy spending tax dollars, but they certainly will be even less happy if their children do not have schools to go to. I am now talking about the kinds of schools we have been able to provide in this province at least for the last 20 years.

I suggest they should be very much concerned in this budget about the amount of money set aside for portable classrooms. From 1985, when the Liberals became the government and were responsible for education policy, the number of portables between 1985 and 1987 increased by 39 per cent. Those are real numbers.

Upon a visit to the Ministry of Education capital offices not too long ago, I was shocked to enter into discussion with the government’s bureaucracy around the topic of the day. The topic that afternoon was where the fire marshal would approve the fire routes between the rows and rows of portable classrooms, as they looked at a number of school boards, nine in particular that afternoon, specifically in Metropolitan Toronto, the region of Durham and in the region of York.

I am very familiar with this. I know they have a great responsibility to young people in this province. I could talk about additional busing; I could talk about crowded facilities; but I will talk today just a little longer on education because it happens to be something we are all concerned about, and that has to do with the implementation of Bill 30 as it affects capital facilities in this province.

The member for Renfrew North will be most familiar with the meetings he and I attended during the hearings on Bill 30. He was our hero when he promised that the Bill 30 implementation would not be at the cost of the public school system.

Mr. Cureatz: Did he live up to the promise?

Mrs. Cunningham: He has not lived up to the promise. I know he will, but he has a long way to go and a lot of it has to do with efficiency in government spending. My challenge to this Liberal government would be to take a look at the size of its bureaucracy and to try to be much more efficient. It has a very short period of time to clean up a very bad act, especially in regard to education.

I would like to move on now to my comments with regard to the Ministry of Skills Development, which is one of the portfolios for which I am expected to be critic. It is a very easy one to be critical of, I might add. I have not been here very long but I find that ministry, to put it bluntly, in disastrous shape when it comes to the way it spends money and the way it does not spend money on programs that are very important to people who are looking to this government for leadership.

One reads the numbers of pieces of paper that are passed around, attends the conferences, looks at the books and all the promises to schools out there in the community. I take a look at more options for delivering new apprenticeship initiatives and see a news release, “Expanded Apprenticeship System Will Attract More Young People.” That is just one. it goes on and on and I read and read and read, but when I visit, I see very little.

The most unhappy people are those who cannot find employment in our society today and they are people who are eager to work but require our assistance in training and acquiring skills. The Ministry of Skills Development underspent its budget by $77 million last year. Those were programs that were promised, those were programs we need badly and those were programs that promised to change the lives of many people, young and old. Spending by the ministry in 1987-88 was 5.7 per cent less than in 1986-87. The allocation in the budget for skills development was slashed by $47 million or 10.3 percent this year.

It was slashed probably because they could not spend it. For heaven’s sake, the government should admit it and go out and tell young people that it just does not know how to deliver the programs that are so necessary. If the government cannot do it, then for heaven’s sake, it should work with the ministries that are able to deliver programs. They should do something about it.

The Futures program for hard-to-employ young people spent $79 million of its total budget. Some $65 million of its budget was not even spent. That is almost one half of its allocated budget. We will be raising questions with regard to Futures time and time again over the next two or three months if someone cannot come to some conclusion about how this program can be delivered.

The Ontario Training Corp., which is part of the new training strategy and which is supposed to be the flagship training program, was a year late getting off the ground. Just phoning people and getting them together for a meeting so they could provide the leadership seemed to me to take more than a year. That is totally unacceptable.

The apprenticeship program is riddled with problems. I brought this to the attention of the House during question period last week. First, there is no new financing structure for apprenticeship programs. None of it has been agreed upon with the federal government, so let’s blame the feds. The province should stop blaming the federal government for the delay in the report that was due so long ago. If it is a priority, why does the government not go after it?

There are other ministers in the government in other portfolios who are going after agreements with our federal counterparts. They seem to be doing fine. In spite of not getting an agreement, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) came up with a solution to the problem that met some of the needs of day care. Surely this could be happening in skills development as well. Passing the buck is not acceptable to the citizens of Ontario.

In program delivery, problems continue to neutralize any of the potential benefits that greater awareness campaigns, like the one sponsored by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), have for future building.

We all know about the successful conference that was held in Toronto last week. The sad part is that 50,000 young people took part in this conference and their expectations were raised. They will go home and find that it is very difficult, if possible at all, to get a position as an apprentice. We aimed at young people, and we are sending them home and they are becoming disillusioned. There are ways of making this happen.

School boards are angry about this. In fact, they are the ones that paid the bill to send the students to the conference, not the Ministry of Skills Development nor the Ministry of Housing, which is what I was led to believe in the advertising that went on. There are ministries that are prepared to do some work, but this was a waste of some wonderful effort and certainly of money. Students and parents are becoming more disillusioned as time goes on.

I think we could be steering students into building trades, first of all, if there was a mandate within some ministry of this government -- there does not seem to be -- if the government supported these ideas enough to get them going and it really thought there was a problem. It knows there is. We are questioning the Minister of Housing on a daily basis.

One of the reasons for slow delivery is that we need more people in the building trades. The Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has a responsibility to provide these programs. The Liberals are the people who have the rules that need to be fixed. Students right now, quite frankly, have to quit school in order to qualify for many of the apprenticeship programs. What kind of leadership is that?

Program implementation problems exist. Regulations impose unrealistic ratios for journeymen to apprentices. The result is that willing and able young people cannot properly register and are therefore turned away.

The promises delivered by the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) last August 31 will never be kept, the way this ministry is operating. The promises of 20,000 apprenticeship positions within five years can never be realized unless this ministry gets its act together and is more able and capable of implementing programs. I think the sad thing for young people today is that when they are disillusioned by government, they then become disillusioned with themselves.

1520

There is a problem of serious mismanagement in this ministry. My research efforts have discovered that there is no enabling legislation and, therefore, the Ministry of Skills Development does not really officially even exist. The ministry underspent for programs that are desperately needed for young people and older people, and poor program delivery of this ministry lowers uptake and discourages and frustrates potential employees, employers and workers alike.

I would like to move on with my concluding remarks with regard to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This is a ministry that has a tremendous responsibility for program delivery for needy people, for children and families that are in difficulty and who are looking to us for support, direction and care. The budget did not announce any new programs for the Ministry of Community and Social Services in spite of new programs being requested by the public. It did not talk about human resource management, and this is one ministry that has tremendous bureaucratic costs. It did not talk about its bureaucracy being of concern to them at all. In fact, they are adding at a rate far greater than any other ministry that we could analyse in the short period of time we had.

Liberals continuously claim they are dedicated to community-based care for the elderly and the disabled; yet this budget fails to do anything which will enable them to move towards their goal. There are no new programs for the provision of community-based care. The foster care system is in a crisis. Children’s aid societies are having trouble attracting new foster care parents, and many children are being sent to cities far away from home for foster care.

The Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies has recently released a report which details the lack of incentives to attract quality foster care, including poor remuneration and lack of benefits. The Minister of Community and Social Services is aware that there are problems with the present system, but he does not believe there is a crisis. This budget fails to address this issue.

Throwing dollars is not the solution, by the way; it certainly is not the solution at all. Supporting foster parents in their work is; so my request would be that we see some initiative to support foster parents, to provide the support they really need and to make them feel as important as they really are to this community.

The budget also fails to mention any reforms of the social services system in the province, which this government has promised since it came to power in 1985. This is a source of embarrassment to all of us who are concerned about unemployed workers and people on social assistance programs.

There is no mention of the Social Assistance Review Committee report, which was supposed to have been released a year ago, or the provincial-municipal cost-sharing report. If the budget is any indication, this province will be waiting another year for any reforms to our social services system.

I will now outline a very few of the problems with Ontario’s system which should have been addressed in this year’s budget, things that we were looking for.

A report prepared by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto says the city is wasting millions of dollars each year because there are not enough training programs for welfare recipients. We have spoken to this in the House before and we will be pursuing it. The report goes on to state that despite increased rhetoric coming from the federal and provincial governments about the need for more training, the existing array of programs fails to deliver on this promise. People over 45 make up almost a quarter of unemployed workers in Metro. They are less apt to be able to transfer existing skills to new jobs, but access of older workers to training programs is inadequate. Existing training systems do not help enough with child care, transportation and health benefits.

The National Anti-Poverty Organization is preparing a report on rural poverty which is expected to be ready this summer. This budget fails to deal with many of the problems in rural Ontario. Poverty in rural Ontario is hidden. Farmers who have been hurt by low commodity prices and high operating costs and single mothers who move to rural areas in search of affordable housing make up a large portion of rural Ontario’s poverty-stricken. One only needs to go and talk to the workers in those communities. They can tell one a lot about lack of affordable housing, about lack of child care and about more of their concerns.

We were looking for programs in this budget to support these people, the people who need the support of this province, and we just simply did not see them. These people do not know how the system works or whom to turn to for help. They are fearful still, even in 1988, that if they ask for too much help, the government will take away their children. It seems unreal that those are the responses to questions when we say, “Why don’t you tell someone?” In 1988, they are still concerned about that.

Food banks are new to rural Ontario. However, they are growing, as are emergency hostels. We had hoped to see some reform of Ontario’s social service system in this budget to deal with some of the problems I have just outlined. However, once again, the Liberals have failed to live up to their promise of reform.

There are a number of questions the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has failed to address, and we must ask ourselves what will happen to average people when the economic picture is not as bright. I am talking now about the global review of the budget. How will these average people afford to pay these back-breaking taxes? What flexibility will the government have to help people if it is spending like there is no tomorrow? The bottom line is, what will happen in the good times?

The fact is that there will be a tomorrow, but the government has completely ignored that fact. They have forgotten about the need to plan for that future day when things will not be quite as good and the revenues will not be rolling in quite as fast. They have forgotten the fact that changes in the structure of the provincial economy are necessary. We have to make adjustments to the new global economic reality.

Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has taken from citizens’ pockets in this budget, there is no plan for our economic future and there is no money to help people make that adjustment. Just more of the same. The Liberal government that says, “Tax, tax, tax; spend, spend, spend,” is the same government that will go to the polls three years from now and expect the public to support it.

In fact, this government has spent to the tune of an extra $29 billion since 1985. They have continued to overspend their budget in the last three years by 10 per cent. That is not a good example to set for those of us and those taxpayers at home who are trying very hard to stay within their means. This budget says that an extra $29 billion is not enough for this government, and I say it is wrong. I say this government has taken more than enough and I am sure the taxpayers and the voters will say the same in the future.

With sound, prudent fiscal management. not one tax increase would have been necessary in the provincial budget. If this government had balanced its budget this year, it would not have had to ask for that one per cent in sales tax. Families would not be forced to rearrange their saving patterns that they have worked so hard to achieve, especially as they save their dollars to buy a home. Unless this government changes its big spending and big taxing ways, then it is not helping Ontario’s economic competitiveness in the future, but hurting it.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks, Madam Speaker.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I want to congratulate the honourable member on a very useful speech. It was not marred by the usual crying and carping that she might have picked up from her seatmate, who tries to advise her on parliamentary procedure.

I think her experience in London has shown through and I certainly appreciate the fact that most of her criticisms were well placed, without the overlay of political veneer that sometimes depreciates their value.

1530

There are many things she referred to that I would like to speak about. She referred in passing, and this of course will be based on her experience in the board of education, to the famous 60 per cent share that the province might be and perhaps should be paying. She is certainly aware of the rapid increase in the commitments of dollars from the provincial Treasury in support of education.

She would also be aware that in most jurisdictions the province pays far more than that famous balancing 60 per cent. In some of the larger jurisdictions, particularly those with very large local assessments such as Toronto and to some extent London, one of the richest communities in Canada, the local community is equipped to pay a larger share. In my view, there is nothing unfair that this comes about.

It is, however, a bit of a concern when a member from London complains about inadequate expenditures. If any of us were to travel there -- as most of us do from time to time -- we would see where the taxpayers dollars go in the provision of the very best post-secondary education and the very best hospital services. As a matter of fact, if we ever say our hospital services are world class, we are referring to what is provided both at the university and the more general facilities in the London community.

That community, as much as any other, has been well served by the allocation of taxpayers’ dollars. Not that it got more than its share, but I believe the whole of the community has been well served by the fair and equitable distribution of funds in support of well-managed programs right across the province.

Mr. Cureatz: I want to say from the outset what a pleasure it is for me to have the wonderful opportunity of sitting next to my seatmate, the newly elected member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham).

Interestingly enough, my colleague has gotten to the Treasurer very well already. I noticed with great interest that he did not have the opportunity of taking in any of my learned comments when I was giving my budget debate address. But suddenly, lo and behold, we have a new elected Conservative member from the London area, the home town of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and the Treasurer is getting a little worried, because he knows when the next election comes about he is not going to be reminding the people about the big tax grab that took place, as my colleague has indicated. Is he going to be reminding the fine people of Ontario about the increase from seven cents to eight cents?

Mind you, I give the Treasurer credit. I happened to be walking by the front of Queen’s Park and he was taking his lumps from the business editor of the Toronto Sun and the massive demonstration that showed up against him and about this tax grab from the middle class people of Ontario. It is the kind of contribution that my seatmate from London, as new as she is, is making to these chambers. She is going to be irking the Treasurer over the next many months and a couple of years to come and reminding the people about the kind of autocracy and arrogant government that have been set into these hallowed chambers.

Never before in the history of Ontario have we seen such a massive administration, and as the first thing, as my colleague has indicated, there is a tax grab by the Treasurer. I say a pox on his house. There will come a time when we will be reminding the people of Ontario. as my colleague has said, about the tax grab the Treasurer made.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Reville: I want to offer my congratulations to the member for London North for her useful intervention in the debate on a most unfortunate budget. I want to offer my condolences to the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) who, while he was holding forth, drove Lorrie Goldstein of the Sun out of the room three times. I cannot figure out what that might mean.

I want to say as well that the dialogue that has occurred between the member from Earl’s and the member for London North in respect of how the education system should be paid for is a familiar dialogue. I tend to side with the member for London North, although not with her predecessors in her party who in fact began the unfortunate slide towards greater reliance on the property tax base for funding of education.

I find it unfortunate that the Treasurer, in responding to the member for London North, would point out the great wealth of the city of London. There is no question that there is wealth in the city of London. The Treasurer knows, as does the member for London North, that property tax is not a progressive form of taxation and the large amount of money that property taxpayers contribute to funding education is not in any relation to their personal wealth. I have had the opportunity to go to London and meet with tenants there who are having a hard time paying their rent, and a lot of that rent goes to pay for education.

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate, and I would like to perhaps move from the ordinary way that a debate of this type is --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Excuse me. this is the opportunity for two minutes to respond --

Mr. Callahan: I thought they were finished, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: No, there is one more, the member for Middlesex.

Mr. Reycraft: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the speech of the member for London North, whose riding neighbours mine. I enjoyed listening to her remarks when she started her speech on the ninth of this month and I enjoyed hearing the wrapup of it today.

When she started the speech early last week, she talked about education and addressed particularly the government’s proposal, as announced during the last election campaign, to reduce the class sizes in early elementary grades to approximately 20 to 1.

I want to quote what she said: “Twenty to one in grades 1 and 2. Who asked the government? It has promised 20 to 1 in grades 1 and 2. It never could have done it.”

She implied in her remarks that somebody had dreamed up this idea about reducing the class sizes to 20 to 1, as if the idea had come out of the clear blue sky. I am sure with a background like hers in education that she must be aware of the early primary education project that has been before the Ministry of Education and before the educational community of this province for some time now. Certainly elementary teachers particularly, right across the province, have been calling for years now for a reduction in class sizes in the early primary grades.

She also talked about the need for additional capital funding, and I am sure she wanted to comment on how the record of this government, its commitment for $900 million over three years, compares to that of previous governments.

Mrs. Cunningham: I have just a couple of remarks. I am very happy to listen to the government members criticize my remarks, but I am also appreciative of their kind observations as well.

I was very careful -- very careful -- to talk about the 60 per cent number provincially. If you would like the London numbers, they are worse. I did not talk about London: I talked about a 60 per cent level of commitment to education by this province, and I said that it was an unrealistic goal and that the government set up unrealistic expectations on behalf of the public. I will stick by those remarks; I still think I am right, and I do not think they can do it.

The 20-to-1 ratio the member talked about -- I would love it. For 14 years we have worked towards that. That was the Liberals’ promise as well, and they promised to implement it over a three-year period. They did not think about the facilities, and my criticism is that they did not think it through. I do not think it is something they could have begun in 1987-88 and they could have completed by 1990. I still do not believe it. I am saying these are two promises that were unrealistic and that is my bottom line on that.

On inadequate expenditures, I did not talk about hospitals and I did not talk about universities. I could have but I chose not to, because I do not know as much about them.

I do know that the universities are telling me their base funding is not enough and that hospitals are accusing this government of not having a long-term plan, and I would support both of those institutions in London in their remarks.

1540

Mr. Callahan: I would like to say at the outset that no one likes taxes. They are not popular, but are quite obviously required if you wish to keep our province up to date and look to the future of our young people, if you wish to make certain there are proper schools, proper education, proper social services for those in need, proper highways and all the things that go to make a progressive and vibrant province that has continually done well over the years.

Even though the Treasurer will not take credit for what has taken place in the past, perhaps this time we can take credit that the economic factors are somewhat, not totally, a direct result of seeing a government with its hand on the tiller of state and moving in a planned direction, unlike the situation that existed for perhaps the 10 years before we took office, where what happened was they planned for tomorrow instead of planning for five, 10 or 15 years down the line.

I guess that was one of the things that got me into politics and running in Brampton. I saw that happening. I saw my community go from being an excellent place of 33,000 people when I moved there, moving to upwards of 181,000 today. It is still an excellent community to live in, but it is bursting at the seams, lacking essential items such as schools. We were growing to look like Portable City. Our health care facilities were excellent but they were overcrowded and overused and there was a necessity for additional health facilities. I am glad to see the concern and sensitivity of this government in terms of the direction and emphasis it puts on dealing with these issues.

As I started off by saying, no one likes taxes. I am sure every member of this Legislature receives calls from taxpayers who are irate about taxes being raised. I hasten to add and draw to their attention the fact that in the last budget by the Treasurer there were no tax increases. There were the needs of this province, the needs of my community and other communities like mine that were equally disadvantaged. They required funds for purposes of eliminating portables. for upgrading health care facilities and for upgrading roads. We went a long way towards doing that and in fact we had an opportunity to reduce the deficit by a bit.

I suggest that the member for London North should research the history of this province for 10 years prior to June 26, 1985, and see just how it was in a state of perpetual, not motion but nonmotion. Things were happening and decisions were being made without consultation with the other elected members of the government and the result --

Mrs. Cunningham: I don’t care about that. I care about the future. Sorry. Look at 1939. How about 1945 and 1918?

Mr. Callahan: I am sorry. The member for London North says she does not care about that, but I suggest that in order to put this entire picture into perspective the member for London North, who is a new member here, has to recognize the fact that many of these things did not come about as a result of a downturn in the economy or as a result of some destruction or something that came upon us untoward. It came about as a result of a lack of planning.

One has to realize that as a result of that, when our government came to office, it came here with a sense of compassion, a sense of looking to the future and a sense of keeping Ontario in a competitive situation. As a result of that, it was necessary to try to plan budgets.

I was quite impressed by the budgets that our good friend the Treasurer, who is sometimes called a parsimonious farmer, brought forward because I think they were tough but they were also sensitive. If there is anything that people understand, I think it is toughness and sensitivity. As long as they can see that the dollars that are being reaped in taxes are being applied towards resolving the problems of the education lesson I was attempting to refer to the member for London North, over the 10 years of inactivity of the previous government and the results, then one can understand why it was necessary to increase taxes.

I would think that even though, as I said, no one likes taxes, had they had the opportunity to have heard the budget read -- unfortunately, we went through a rather artificial process because it was delayed and it was not allowed to happen. The people of Ontario did not have a chance to see the budget read by the Treasurer. As a result of that, it was left up to the press to interpret perhaps what the result of it was. It was also left up to the opposition.

I do not criticize the opposition members for that; it is their job to keep us honest. But I think in doing that they have to recognize the state of Ontario as we received it and the attempts we are making to try to provide proper educational facilities for young people, and proper health facilities, as well as how we are trying to keep in tune with the needs of those people who require some form of social assistance.

To solve or attempt to solve problems is probably the major problem that each of us has in our constituency offices, such as when someone with a young family calls up and requires social assistance housing. There are 30,000 units guaranteed in here. That, I suggest, is hopefully going to go part of the way towards trying to solve that problem, which I think we are all faced with every day.

In my community, I see very real advantages. Maybe those who do not live in the region of Peel or the great city of Brampton would say: “That’s fine. The member for Brampton South is happy because he is getting good things.” But I think each and every one of us in expressing our concern or our objection to the budget has to look at it in the overall perspective of Ontario as well as in the overall perspective of the people we serve in our particular ridings.

I can tell members that in the ridings of Brampton South and Brampton North -- and I speak for my colleague, who is not here; he is attending another meeting -- we have seen moneys for capital expansion allocated to the public and separate school boards in my community that will go a long way, but not completely, quite obviously; when I met with both the separate and public school boards in my community in 1987, they had a need of $125 million for capital funds.

If one looks at that, one has to ask, what was happening before? Why were those funds not there? Why did the schools not keep up with the growth in the community? One has to conclude that the visionaries of the past, in terms of their budgets, elected perhaps to take the easy path and not raise taxes or to raise them minimally, or to lake a poll to determine whether they should be raised or not raised, rather than taking the mature approach that this government is taking of biting the bullet and saying to the people of Ontario, “We were elected to govern, not to let Angus Reid or some other pollster tell us what was popular and, when we found out what was popular, to deal with it in that popular vein rather than to take the flak.”

I think members of the opposition, rather than berating the Treasurer in terms of the approach he has taken, while still criticizing, because that is part of the opposition’s role, should be looking a little more closely and recognizing that this budget and the efforts by the Treasurer and by this government itself are to move Ontario ahead to make certain our young people are properly educated.

For instance, funds were allocated for grades 1 and 2 to have smaller sized classes. I certainly think the member for London North would agree that is a progressive step; it is one that was long overdue but was never taken by the previous government. There is also the fact that we are moving into the area of trying to encourage research and development. If Ontario just simply forgets about that, then in fact what happens is that Ontario stays where it is now when the rest of the country moves ahead.

Retail sales tax: One could take a very narrow view, I suppose, and say, “Don’t do it through retail sales tax, because that’s something people can see.” One of the things that makes me proud to be a member of the government is that we do it up front. It had not been raised since 1973 or 1975, I believe, and at that time the member for London North, who is now a member of the third party, which formerly was the Conservative government, raised it two points. I did not see anything -- I was around in those days; I ran in those days -- I did not see anything really coming to my community as a result of the raising of two percentiles of the retail sales tax. I think we recognize that this is an upfront way of doing it.

1550

If one looks at the sensitive nature of our government in terms of how it sets up the net cash requirements that are generated by the needs of people of Ontario and then looks at the federal government, which in fact cuts back -- I think it was something in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion in transfer payments -- where does that leave Ontario in terms of making up those funds? The federal government, in doing that, was being mean and nasty. I think what one sees is the Treasurer of Ontario attempting to cover the needs that have been lost as a result of that mean and nasty act on the part of the Minister of Finance for the federal government in terms of cutting us back $1.5 billion.

The federal government is operating in good times too. One would think in good times that they would not do that to us. Of course, they are preparing to go to the polls. They figure Ontario is perhaps a dead loss and they really are going to deal with us in a difficult fashion. That is unfortunate because what it does is doubly tax the citizens of this province in that they have to face a tax in Ottawa as well as face a tax in Ontario.

That is unfortunate, but you do not see the Treasurer shrinking from his responsibility. You do not see this government shrinking from its responsibility. You see it being fair and up front and saying that it is important to us to deal with social services, with education and with health care.

In my own community, during the years I ran for public office on the provincial scene, there were five- and six-hour waits in emergency services. I ran in the 1977 election and the 1981 election, and that was the most important single issue to me in running against the former Premier. Nothing happened -- no second health facility whatsoever. One has to wonder, what was happening with the dollars that were being raised in taxes over those years? Why were they not being committed to that community, which was the fastest-growing community in Canada?

In the schools as well, portables were added constantly. Young people were being shuffled around, bussed from place to place, from here to there. In fact, they put up signs at the entrances to the subdivisions that were being built in my community, which said, “Your children may not be able to receive their education in this community.” Can you believe that? That was the answer that was given to them at that time.

This government is trying to turn that around. What it is trying to say is that people who move into a community and pay the large dollars they pay for housing today are entitled to have their children educated at least within the reasonable limits, geographically, of the home.

I can remember speaking to my council one time, when we got to the point of nobody recognizing that we needed an additional health facility in Brampton. It was like a conspiracy of silence. The press, which today considers it to be a very major item that we have not got that health facility in three years, said nothing during those years. This government has done more in three years than the other government did, or did not do, in 10 or 15 years.

How can you possibly invite people into your community, let it grow to 181,000 people, and not have that significant need addressed? The Liberal government is moving, I think, very efficiently and very practically towards solving that problem.

I remember suggesting to my council colleagues one day that perhaps, in addition to the school signs, we should put up signs at the entrance to new subdivisions, saying, “You may not be able to take your health care facilities in this community either.”

That to me is sort of a capsulized view of what was going on in Ontario. When you reflect that against what is happening now, you have upfront taxation and you do not have hidden attempts to try to take the money from the people of this province. I think the people of this province are very understanding people; they are very fair people. Those people who recognize the return they are getting for their dollar are people who are going to recognize that the taxes were necessary in order to meet those commitments.

I really find interesting some of the criticism we get, particularly from the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham). She was involved in education. She must understand the importance of it and the cost. When one looks at it, over the three years that this government has been in office some $7 billion has been spent on capital structures. In fairness to the former government, probably part of that is as a result of growth. But when one talks about $7 billion, I cannot even fathom that. There must have been a lot of inactivity over the 10 or 15 years that preceded the Liberal government’s taking office.

When one looks at the fact that our health care system budget has been increased by $1.2 billion in 1988-89, added to the total expenditure, it comes to $12.7 billion. When one thinks that actually takes one third of the provincial budget, one has to recognize that shows the sensitivity of a government that cares about the health care of this province.

When one looks at the question of post-secondary education, which suffered dramatically, not just at the hands of the former government --

Mr. Cureatz: But your administration over the two years of minority government.

Mr. Callahan: -- I point out to the member for Durham East, but also in tandem with the federal Conservative government in Ottawa. They joined hands with their brethren and cut back on the transfer payments to the province to deal with the question of secondary education. What does this government do?

Mr. Cureatz: They raise the taxes.

Mr. Callahan: No, they have a four-year capital plan of some $440 million, an accessibility envelope of $88 million and subsidies. Now here is a government that is not stagnant and does not just sort of set its budget at the beginning of the year; it actually responds to the problems that are being raised by those people in the opposition and by the public.

With regard to the lack of housing for university students, some 5,000 student residence spaces have been provided for in this budget. Clearly, this is a government that is flexible enough to respond not just to the future plans, but also to those needs that arise during the course of the year. I suggest that is a very important thing.

We are looking at the north. Despite the comments in this House about the fact that the bill we are debating here does not go far enough, the fact is that for the first time, northern Ontario, which I think is a very special community for every member of this Legislature and one that has never been addressed by the former Conservative government -- it had been given little patchwork quilt things, “Buy Minaki Lodge; do this, do that,” but never an overall scheme -- is now in a situation where it is going to receive a heritage fund to try to approach the question of how to solve the problem.

I understand there are some concerns by the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), but I think she has to admit that after all the years her father was here and all the times he chided the former Ontario Conservative government for its lack of action in northern Ontario, this is certainly a move in the right direction. If she did not admit that, that would not be being perfectly honest.

The other factor is that young people today are concerned about a number of things, at least the young people I run into, and I am sure it is probably prevalent among most young people. They are concerned about a job. This government has gone a long way -- through the skills development program, the Futures program, educational upgrading and the co-op programs -- to attempt to provide that opportunity.

Even more important than that, the thing I found with young people is that they are concerned about our environment. When you see a 51 per cent increase in funds allocated to the environment, what does that tell you? Does that tell you that the former Conservative government was asleep at the switch in terms of environment or does it mean the environment has got so bad that we had to spend 51 per cent more?

1600

I suggest, maybe in fairness to them, that it might be a little bit of each, but I think the larger proportion is that this government, under the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), has shown greater care for protecting the future of the young people -- my children, my children’s children and so on -- instead of spoiling it and perhaps doing much of what they are doing in the United States. They are actually sacrificing the future, sacrificing the enjoyment. sacrificing what is really a heritage that has been given to us by God to protect and pass on to our descendants. In fact, what they are doing is raping it.

A 51 per cent increase in expenditure for the environment in itself demonstrates the sensitivity of this government. It also demonstrates the need for the taxes required to fund that.

Mr. Philip: Talk about Sunday closings, you obviously do not care about children.

Mr. Callahan: I hear the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) commenting. Obviously, he does not care about the environment. I suggest that child care --

Mr. Philip: You want their parents to work on Sundays.

Mr. Callahan: He voted against Bill 123, which was a bill that might have kept a couple of them alive, so he should keep his mouth closed.

In any event, child care is another area. I think all members would have to admit that the minister responsible for that portfolio is probably one of the most sensitive individuals. You can see his sensitivity when he is questioned by the opposition about what he is not doing.

Mr. Philip: Boy, will we quote you on that sleaze.

Mr. Callahan: That gentleman cares about what is going on -- sometimes I wonder about the socialist party or the New Democratic Party, which always claims to be the protector of the poor, the impoverished and the others.

There was $289 million to implement Ontario’s New Directions for Child Care. I suggest that again shows sensitivity. It also shows that this government and this Treasurer are prepared to be up front and say, “If you want these services, and we think they are important because of the future of Ontario, the future of our children, the future of our environment and the future of Ontario as a whole being competitive, we are going to have to charge you extra taxes.”

I have no difficulty in defending this budget whatsoever. I think the budget reflects money collected and well spent. I suggest it is a budget that will bring Ontario not just back to where we should be, because we have a way to go -- we suffered from the past and we are now trying to recoup the losses we suffered from the inactivity of the former government -- but it is also going to bring us into the future so that Ontario will continue to be a wonderful province to live in, and one we can all be proud of.

The Acting Speaker: Does any honourable member wish to comment on the remarks made by the member for Brampton South’?

Mr. Cureatz: Not wanting to miss the opportunity of making a comment or two to the honourable member about trying to defend, as I said earlier to the Treasurer, the indefensible, I will tell members that a Liberal government back-bencher has a lot of nerve standing up in his or her place and defending the budget.

I am going to look with great interest three years from now when the honourable member is canvassing door to door. I am sure he is going to say in his pamphlet: “I, Bob Callahan, brought you the tax increase of 1988. Please remember we did it for the good of the people of Ontario -- seven cents to eight cents, an increase in personal tax, the grab on gasoline tax.” I say to him I will look with great relish and glee as he squirms from door to door, trudging, head lower and lower, thinking in terms of that budget he tried to defend back on this day, May 19, 1988.

To think he has the gall to say the Minister of the Environment is taking such a leadership role, if you can believe it, on the environment. He is a big windbag. He is travelling around talking about acid rain, but as I have said in this House, let him start taking some responsibility in leadership and policy initiatives about landfill sites in the Golden Horseshoe.

Right now, Metro Toronto is looking at Durham East. They are all set to go with a major landfill site. Halton is shipping garbage to New York state. We have Peel crying what to do with its garbage. Durham region is crying what to do with its garbage. What do we hear from the Minister of the Environment? We hear gobbledegook about how he has done such a fine job.

I say to the honourable member nonsense; he has not convinced me one iota that the big tax grab was for environmental purposes.

Mrs. Cunningham: Because I received so much attention during the member’s speech, I thank him very much. I must have made some impact on his thinking.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, don’t hold your breath.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am now talking to the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan). It would take a lot? OK.

I would like to talk about the visionaries of the past whom he spoke about, and I am sure he was talking about the Progressive Conservative members of the government at the time, who built the colleges and the universities of today. They were visionaries and I thank him for his compliments.

I would also like to refer to the signs at the entrances to subdivisions. I was very much a part of asking for those signs telling communities that, no, there would not be schools built in new subdivisions, because we were trying to fill empty spaces in the cores of municipalities. We believe in municipalities and we believe in keeping the cores of our cities alive and well. That is why we did not build new schools; we filled empty spaces first. It is called good planning.

I would also like to remind the member, as he talked about health care, the government does have a tremendous responsibility. We are in the time of an ageing society and therefore we are having to meet the needs of an older population that we are supporting so that people can live longer and more fulfilled lives. The government has that responsibility. It asked for it and it campaigned on it. People do not want to wait in the emergency wards of the past, as the member for Brampton South did. The Liberals promised them they would not have to. Do it. That is all I can say. I would not have made those promises if I had been one of them.

With regard to student residences, I have looked at the 5,000 spaces. They have been announced four times. I can hardly wait to see what they are.

Mr. Cureatz: Just four?

Mrs. Cunningham: The same 5,000 spaces.

On the retail sales tax, if the government had balanced its budget, if it had spent in the areas it promised it would spend in and it had not overspent in other areas, it would have balanced its budget.

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mrs. Cunningham: It was the same amount of money as the sales tax --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Does any other honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the member from Brampton South?

Mr. Cureatz: Well --

The Acting Speaker: The member has already commented and had two minutes in which to comment. Unless it is a point of order, would he please take his seat’? Does any other honourable member wish to comment? If not, the member for Brampton South for two minutes.

Mr. Callahan: That has to be a record. Either it was a terrible speech or there is no one who really wants to comment.

I would like to say to the member for Durham East, as he is being congratulated by the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) -- for what, I do not know -- that I am not afraid to go door to door. I think the people of my community know one thing, and I say it with pride. I have always called the shot as I felt it, if it was popular or unpopular and I intend to do the same thing in the next election, should I run. I can assure him that I will go door to door without any difficulty. If there are people in my community who feel that what I have said today is not up front, obviously, they will not vote for me.

I have always told it as it was, and I think that is exactly what our provincial Treasurer has done. I would suggest perhaps that is a lesson for the political world. I think perhaps people are expecting that you are going to say what you mean and do what you say and not worry about the consequences in the next election as to what you said in the Legislature, because if what you said in the Legislature is what you believe -- and I think the people in my community understand that they needed these funds in order to cover the sins of the past Tory government -- you have no difficulty in knocking on those doors. I would invite, right now, the member for Durham East and the member for London North, assuming they are running again in the next election, to come to Brampton South and knock on doors with me.

1610

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I would like to inform the members that we have a guest in the Speaker’s gallery, the Honourable Ken Wright, member for the North-Western Province, Parliament of Victoria, Australia.

Please join me in welcoming him.

Mr. Philip: It is kind of appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we should have such a distinguished guest in our gallery at this point in time, because somewhere during my speech I am sure I will get around to dealing with some of the cost-saving measures, some of the efficiency measures that have been implemented by the Australian Labour government when it took over a government that was quite bankrupt and, indeed, had major deficits.

As our party’s critic on government spending. I want to give some credit to the Australian government for how it has been able to reduce its deficit and, indeed, it has developed some ways of dealing with the problems of government mismanagement.

Before I deal with that, though, I would like to deal directly with some of the things specifically in this budget.

I guess one has to say that if one compares this budget with the previous government, one must have to say what a difference a majority government makes, what a difference an election makes. The House may remember the previous government’s pre-election budget, the election budget that said the economy of Ontario is so strong, it is not necessary to raise any taxes; the economy of Ontario is so strong that we can reduce Ontario health insurance plan premiums or, indeed, eliminate them; the economy of Ontario is so strong that it is not necessary to make any kind of tax grab or tax increase.

The new government introduced by the majority Liberal government at Queen’s Park is clearly much more conservative than any of the recent Conservative budgets that I have experienced as a member of this Legislature, and I am now in my fifth term -- so for four terms, going on five.

If it is not a Conservative government in disguise, why would the Liberal Treasurer increase the most regressive of all possible taxes: namely, the sales tax? Why would the Treasurer have adjusted personal income tax so that a family of four earning $40,000 per year will be paying more income tax next year while a family of four earning $90,000 per year will be paying less?

If it is not a Conservative budget, why would this Liberal government have introduced a budget where about 30,000 Ontario corporations are legally allowed to avoid paying any income tax, thus costing Ontario about $4 billion, while ordinary people are having their income taxes increased? What the present Liberal budget does is exacerbate an already reactionary and unfair tax system implemented by the federal Conservative government in Ottawa.

Allow me to provide the House with just one example of how unfair the present tax system is to middle-income residents of Ontario. In so doing, I will use the latest figures I can obtain: namely, the year 1986.

If we take an Ontario family of four with an income of $21,700 -- which was then the poverty line -- we see that the family paid $900 in Ontario income tax and $1,300 in federal income tax.

At the same time, Brascan, an Ontario-based corporation that had profits of $136 million; Cadillac Fairview, which had a profit of $58 million; Xerox, with a profit of $59 million; and, indeed, even the Toronto Stock Exchange, with a profit of $6 million, paid absolutely no corporate income tax whatsoever.

The Mulroney Conservatives call this “tax reform.” Now, this is the reform which the Treasurer of Ontario has endorsed, and he has simply increased the unfairness in the present tax system.

Perhaps I am not being completely correct in saying that the Treasurer of Ontario is a staunch supporter of the federal tax reform package. If one looks at his present budget, it appears he was unhappy that federal tax reform was going to decrease personal income revenue, and so he increased the provincial share from 50 per cent of the federal tax payable to 51 per cent this year and then to 52 per cent next year.

What is probably most objectionable is that the Treasurer has moved in on the most regressive form of taxation: namely, sales tax. It might be useful to point out -- I will put this in perspective -- that nearly 35 per cent of the total revenues in Canada are raised from taxes on goods and services, compared to only 17 per cent in the United States, a country usually thought to be more regressive in its tax system.

What is so astonishing about the Liberals using a sales tax increase as a way of raising revenue is the complete about-face they have taken on this issue. Just like their flip-flops on Sunday shopping, on beer in the grocery stores and on the elimination of Ontario health insurance plan premiums, the Liberals have done a complete turnabout on sales tax as a revenue producer.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker -- and I was in the House at the time -- when the Liberals, as the official opposition, rang the bells for three days, claiming that the Tories were introducing a regressive and completely unacceptable system of taxation by increasing sales tax. This is the same party that now is doing exactly the same thing.

Miss Martel: How times change.

Mr. Philip: Well, how times change, as my colleague says.

During the emergency debate on health care services only a few days ago, I pointed out some of the problems facing the Etobicoke General Hospital as a result of the promises that have been broken by this Liberal government. I pointed out that the government has broken promises to provide alternative care and that at the present time we have on any given day from 70 to 80 people occupying active treatment beds when more appropriate and, indeed, less expensive care facilities should be made available.

I want to carry on on that theme for just a minute. The Ontario Nurses’ Association commissioned a study by Goldfarb Consultants in which the nurses expressed their concern about their workplace frustrations and how these frustrations will affect their futures in nursing.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker -- and I know you were in the chair -- when, during the emergency debate, I pointed out that in the emergency ward of the Etobicoke General we are losing qualified, highly professional nurses who have been with us for 12 to 15 years because they simply are getting burned out. Indeed, if we read the findings of the Ontario Nurses’ Association study, we find that this is happening clean across the province, not just in Etobicoke General, not just in the Metro hospitals, but clean across the province as the result of this government’s promises that are not being kept.

I would like to read just a couple of sentences from the ONA summary of its commissioned study. Here are the nurses in Ontario talking to this government:

“Ontario’s health care system is in crisis. Of that there is no longer any doubt. Evidence of the crisis can be found in health care facilities throughout the province as reported almost daily by the news media.”

Then they give some of the examples. We are familiar with the examples, because we in the official opposition, and indeed the Conservative Party as well, have been bringing out case after case of people who are suffering, who are not obtaining adequate treatment and who are losing their jobs because they cannot obtain the kind of treatment that is required to put them back into the workforce.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association goes on to say:

“The real story is that for many nurses their much-beloved profession has become intolerable. Its opportunities for caring have vanished, and many nurses are refusing to work under increasingly unbearable conditions that do not allow them to give patients the full and proper care they need and deserve.... Nurses are required to endure working conditions that greatly reduce the amount of direct quality care that they can give to their patients. These conditions include too few support staff, excessive patient loads, increasing demands to perform non-nursing duties, poor work scheduling, etc.”

It goes on to say:

“The basic result of this survey on ONA members is clear. A crisis of monumental proportions looms ahead for Ontario’s health care system unless corrective actions are taken now to stem a potentially serious toss of nurses from hospitals and other health care facilities across the province. Otherwise, what is now only an apparent nursing shortage will become a real nursing shortage with staggering implications for both the future quality of patient care and the general functioning of the health care system as a whole.”

1620

I hope the Treasurer, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and other members will read that study, not just the summary and some of the key elements which I have outlined but the whole study. It is worth their understanding, because they can understand in a very concrete and statistical manner, in a very scientific manner. the very things that I understood when I toured the Etobicoke General Hospital and saw nurses having to feed as many as five or six chronic care patients on a floor, thereby not being able to devote as much time to those who require active treatment.

It is not as though there are not alternatives. If we look at our communities, we see that there are many groups of dedicated people out there who want to organize and provide alternatives to the present chronic care crisis that we have, the problem where we have people who are in active treatment centres who, in fact, would be more appropriately placed in other, less expensive centres where, indeed, they would receive better care in the sense that it would be care zeroed in to their particular need.

I received a letter from the board of directors of the Huntington’s Disease Resource Centre, which submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Community and Social Services for a 30-bed community-living centre for persons in the middle stages of Huntington’s disease. These people clearly would be more appropriately housed in that kind of situation.

St. Demetrius church, which is just south of my riding but serves many of the people in my riding, has proposed to build a facility that would certainly help remedy the situation at the Etobicoke General and other surrounding hospitals. I pointed out that the ministry promised a great number of beds to the northwest corner of Metro and, in fact, it has not delivered on those.

What we have, then, is a serious situation not only from the point of view of people who cannot get into the hospitals, because people are there who are occupying the active treatment beds who would be more appropriately placed in other facilities, but also from the point of view of many of my seniors having to go long distances to visit spouses at facilities that are a long distance from where they live. We have seniors who are travelling on the bus to Parkdale or even to Scarborough to visit a spouse who may have had a stroke and, therefore, because of the shortage in Etobicoke, cannot obtain adequate care or chronic care or extended care in their own community.

We also have the situation where not only do seniors have to travel at considerable effort and costs to visit their spouses but this government charges away what little income those spouses have.

I would like to read members a letter from a constituent of mine. This particular person is talking about the copayments for chronic care patients. He says:

“The justification given when these charges were authorized was that the patient no longer had to maintain a home and so could afford these payments.”

A hospital is not a home, by any stretch of the imagination, and the person with a spouse would still have to maintain a home as well as keep the spouse in the hospital.

What you have is a situation where the rationalization is that the person is in a facility and therefore does not have to have the costs and upkeep of a home. But, of course, if the person is married, then he still has to keep up the home. Furthermore, that spouse has additional travelling costs to visit the person in the particular facility he is in. There is no justification whatsoever for this. It is simply one more way in which this government is insensitive to the elderly or the disabled and the families of these people, who are already under stress.

I am pleased, as a member of Rexdale’s community, but whether I was an MPP or not, I think I would still be pleased and probably would serve on the board of an organization called Central and Northern Etobicoke Home Support Services. CANES is an organization that supplies home support services to people in both northern and central Etobicoke.

We have a problem. Our problem is that while we have a waiting list of people who want these services, people whom we can keep in their own homes instead of their going into institutions if we provide adequate home support, we have a staffing problem. The staffing problem is fairly simple. We happen to pay about $7.50 an hour. This compares to an average across the province of $5.50, so we pay roughly $2 an hour more than most communities. But the problem is that, with our inadequate budgets, we are not providing any kind of additional pension benefits or other benefits that people can obtain by simply going into a factory up the street where they can get $8, $9, $10 or maybe even $12 an hour plus benefits.

So we have the situation where we take people who are well meaning, who are dedicated, who want to help the elderly and the disabled, who want to do work that many people in fact would find unpleasant at times, but they are faced with the problem that they also have families to feed. They also have responsibilities to their families.

As long as the average homemaker in Ontario is making only $5.50 an hour, or even in my riding in Metro Toronto is making $7.50 an hour, without any kind of adequate benefits, the person is naturally motivated to accept an easier job in a factory, where he knows that he will have steady hours and also a steady input into a pension plan and other benefits.

No wonder we have problems keeping staff. No wonder we also have additional costs of training staff, because the more people who change over, of course, the higher the costs are in terms of professional development. When we compare that $5.50 an hour, or even the $7.50 an hour that we at CANES are paying, to what Quebec homemakers make, we find that the homemakers there, who are government employees, make $10.81 an hour. They also receive benefits. That is the difference between this province and our neighbouring province.

Let me say just a few more things about the homemaker program. Ever since announcing the integrated homemaker program in January 1986, the Liberals have been able to grab a lot of headlines with promises about providing community support service for seniors and the disabled. Now they are in the process of breaking all of these promises. When the Minister of Community and Social Services announced the integrated homemaker program in January 1986, he said:

“Independence and self-determination are two of the major attributes of the adult person. It is an important part of the government’s mandate to help people to maintain these attributes. All Ontarians have the right to play as full a part in community life as they can ... and we in the ministry will help them to do so in any way that our mandate can allow.”

Yet here in this House today, the same minister admitted that he had refused an application from one municipality for a very needed program of home care in that particular community. When that minister announced the new sites for the program in October, he said, “The government of Ontario is committed to helping all of its citizens to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible, regardless of age or physical handicap.”

During the 1987 election, the Premier issued a release entitled “The Ontario Liberal Government Commitment to Community Support for Seniors and Disabled People.” The Premier is quoted in the release as saying: “Seniors and disabled people want to be independent and remain in their home communities.... We must provide the necessary supports to make this a reality.”

Of course, that is not happening. Most centres that my colleagues and I have spoken with have not been adequately funded from the beginning. Funding constraints have caused cutbacks in the service and waiting lists. This will continue as long as we can expect, and we have been notified by the government to expect, only a 4.5 per cent increase over the 1987-88 budgets. What we have is a serious situation.

1630

Let me get back to the problem of what underfunding does to these programs. Let me read a letter from a woman who is employed as a homemaker in Etobicoke. She says: “I have been employed as a homemaker in Etobicoke for four months. I enjoy my work but I am convinced that without a substantial increase in wages, the quality of future homemakers will deteriorate. The quality of home care provided by this service is very high, is a necessary service to our community and will be in even greater demand in the future.”

In the future, of course, Mr. Speaker, is when you and I are going to need that service, hopefully not for 20 or 30 years but you and I are talking about our future when we look at these services.

She goes on to say, “Our contribution to the health care system in keeping people out of nursing homes, hospitals. etc., should not be underrated.” Then she says, “I believe we deserve a decent wage. I am asking for your help and I hope the situation will be addressed before there is a shortage of caring homemakers.”

There is a shortage of homemakers now and we know that. If there were a turndown in the economy, maybe there would be some effect on that, but at the present time, in a North American hot economy, it is very difficult, indeed impossible, to ask people to work for wages that are far below the market and expect people, no matter how dedicated, to stay in that profession.

One of the things about the budget that allows a great amount of laxity has to deal with some of the issues that perhaps have been of concern to us and that directly affect our constituents or some of the people in our ridings. I would like to deal with just a few of those items.

The minister will recall -- indeed I think as a member of the opposition he was on my side and may indeed have made a similar speech -- when he pointed out the current tax levy on shoes. One of my constituents writes: “Today it is hard to find a decent pair of shoes for under $30. Do you think this tax levy should keep pace with inflation?”

If we look at the Ontario sales tax, the $30 has not been subject to any kind of indexing under subsection 5(1-25) or regulation 903, section 1-8, which puts it at the price of $30 for a pair of shoes under which you can be exempt from sales tax. Indeed, when we discuss the retail sales tax branch of the ministry, the level has not been changed for some time, nor was there any attempt by this Treasurer to look at some of those taxes that in fact are not taking inflation into account.

Similarly, we see a great number of inconsistencies in the policies of this government that are causing great concern to industries, workers and people in our ridings. Today. the minister had the audacity, the chutzpah, to actually say that he was concerned about highway safety. This is the same minister who is introducing what amounts to free trade legislation: deregulation of the trucking industry.

We know from experience what has happened in other jurisdictions; except perhaps in Britain, where a very strong trade union movement at the time of the deregulation managed to keep safety standards up. Generally speaking, if we look at the North American experience, deregulation, no matter what platitudes or what promises are made about safety, means a decrease in safety. We have seen this in the airline industry and we saw it in the trucking industry where the interstate trucking deregulation was put on.

I have a letter here from a constituent living on Panorama Court that deals with this. It is addressed to the Honourable Ed Fulton. It says:

“I recently learned that you have introduced a bill which would deregulate interprovincial trucking in Ontario. I am deeply concerned about this, as I have been an employee of a trucking company for 23 years. I am employed at Glengarry Transport Ltd. in Alexandria. From what I can see, Bill 88 will do wonders for people employed in the American trucking industry, but it will do nothing for me and the people I work with.”

That is an employee talking, but I have talked to a number of the trucking-company executives and owners and in fact what I am told by a number of them is that their only alternative, if this reactionary legislation is brought in, is to buy an American trucking company, move their computer operations and their office operations to the United States and then simply operate out of the United States.

The reason is very simple. Despite all of the promises made by the Mulroney free-traders that they would get access to the American market for our trucking firms, they have failed. Out of all the American states, 42, including some of the more important ones from Canada’s point of view, such as Michigan, are heavily regulated statewise. Therefore, as long as the state governments refuse to let our companies operate within their borders, members can see what kind of situation we are going to have through this deregulation introduced by the provincial Liberal government.

What we are going to have is American companies coming in, buying us out or undercutting our market, or indeed the opposite, which is already happening with one of the largest trucking companies in Ontario. It is simply packing up, moving to the United States and operating both in the United States and Canada, but at a loss of jobs to Ontario drivers and, more particularly, to the clerical operators, the administrators and people like that in the Ontario trucking companies.

Let me deal also with a topic that I have been working with through the Ombudsman. I think we have certainly one of the best ombudsmen in the world and we are going to deeply miss him. He is about to retire in June.

I am very concerned about the bureaucracy of certain tribunals in this province. The one that concerns me the most is the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Let me just give a couple of examples. In September 1984 there was an application by the Teamsters for certification of a union. The decision was not forthcoming until March 1988 -- September 1984 to March 1988. The employer is now saying he does not have a record of the employees who were in his employ at that time in September 1984, so we may well end up with another hearing further down the road.

I called, and indeed the Ombudsman called on my behalf after my supplying him with the information, and said, “It is completely unacceptable to have a tribunal that wastes so much time in coming down with a decision.” It is the old cliché, I guess, that has been used in this House so often: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is what is happening in the labour relations tribunal.

I understand that Hamilton Yellow Cab, which has been organized by the Retail Wholesale Union, has had a similar delay, although it is one year less. It is still waiting for a decision to be made.

I say to members it is not the role of a politician to interfere in the decision of a tribunal, but it is my role as a politician and as an elected representative to say if a tribunal’s processes are inefficient or have completely broken down. I hope the Treasurer, who no doubt is paying close attention to my remarks, will at least tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) that these kinds of delays at that board are unacceptable, in the same way as the delays that we are experiencing in that other famous organization, the Workers’ Compensation Board, under the same ministry, are not working.

1640

Allow me to make a few comments concerning efficiency in government. I have talked about the inefficiencies in some of the regulatory agencies. I have talked about some of the inconsistencies in regulatory legislation which this government has introduced. But let me say that it seems to me that we in the New Democratic Party have been saying over the years that Ontario Hydro was out of control. We have offered a number of solutions, not just on ways in which Ontario Hydro could be monitored but indeed on how other crown corporations could be made more accountable and more efficient.

We have said that the capital-expenditure program of Ontario Hydro was unacceptable and that if we were not careful it would bankrupt the province or create major problems for us. Now. once again, we see a $528-million cost overrun by this crown corporation. We offered specific proposals and indeed showed how other jurisdictions had managed to keep tighter controls and tighter accountability on crown corporations. The Conservative government ignored them, and the Liberal Party promoted some of these ideas when it was in opposition. Now we see there is absolutely less accountability under this government than there was under the previous Conservative government.

Earlier today I questioned the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston). I want to go through that particular instance in a minute. but let me say that the Chairman of Management Board, who is the minister responsible for the supervision of efficient management of all ministries in this province, must really be asked what he does. If you compare him with his counterpart in the federal Conservative government, or even in the previous federal Liberal government, you see a complete abdication of responsibility by the Chairman of Management Board as compared to his federal counterpart, the President of the Treasury Board.

At least if you go to Ottawa, you see that the President of the Treasury Board exercises some authority and has been able to bring about some cost reductions. These cost reductions through the Comptroller General of Canada, who reports directly to the Treasury Board, have had some major impacts on saving the taxpayers’ money. It is not good enough, you see, to allow the standing committee on public accounts and the Provincial Auditor to deal with the wasting of money after the money has already been wasted. What you need are efficiencies within the government.

If we look at the Provincial Auditor’s report for this year, the latest report. we see what he has to say about management by this Liberal government. I do not want to quote it all because it is fairly long. but he says:

“Most audit branches had defined their audit universe and had developed one-year and long-term plans. However, the number of audits actually completed was falling well short of plans.

“There had been a number of initiatives to upgrade the internal audit function, including the development of audit guides and audit-related training courses. However, there is still a general need to upgrade basic auditing skills.

“Working-paper files often did not comply with professional standards. It was often difficult or impossible to determine the nature and scope of the audit work performed.

“A systems-based audit approach was generally not utilized....

“A number of branches did not have an adequate system to effectively monitor and control staff time.

“In many instances, the performance of audit staff was not evaluated on a regular basis. Where staff appraisals were completed, they frequently did not assess audit-related performance criteria.”

Indeed, and this I consider the most damning:

“There were four branches (ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Education. Revenue and Treasury and Economics) where the work could generally be relied on.”

Let’s congratulate those four ministries, but one has to ask, where were the others? Why are the others so absolutely inefficient that they cannot, in this day and age, run an efficient management system, an efficient accountability system? Only today I pointed out, by my questions in the House, that this government manages not through a detailed management program, one that can predict what its costs are likely to be and ways in which it can cut back on unnecessary costs, but by crisis.

Over the years, I have pointed out to the minister that he had to bring in conflict-of-interest guidelines, legislation or regulations vis-à-vis senior civil servants. Yet today he tells me that in the light of a couple of recent cases where we have public servants, former deputy ministers, actually acting in an advocacy capacity before the very ministries they had charge of, that was perhaps inappropriate and he would look at it.

The federal government has not needed to look at it: it acted. The federal government has a system whereby this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable.

What I must say to the government is, why does it have to wait until it has a cadaver, a horror case, before it decides to do anything? Surely there is a time when they can look and see what other countries are doing. They can say, “There are systems by which we can develop efficient management, and we have to enact these rules and regulations before the taxpayers lose millions of dollars as a result of the inefficiencies.”

I had the privilege, on Monday, May 9, of being asked to deliver a paper on accountability before the Canadian Institute of Financial Management. One of the things I enjoyed there -- in addition to having an opportunity to share some of the ideas that I have been promoting for the last five or six years, and that five or six years ago were considered radical and are now accepted in many jurisdictions -- was that I had an opportunity to meet with other people from other countries and other jurisdictions and see some of their methodologies.

Indeed, if we look at what is happening, our public accounting professionals have developed the auditing methodologies. They have made great strides, but what we need now is the will of government to implement them.

We heard about some of the strides that were made when the Australian Labour government suddenly found itself -- I do not know whether by surprise -- put into power. Lo and behold, they had to face the problem of major deficits. We saw that a government that had will and that consulted with the employees and the people could in fact introduce workable systems, including sunset legislation that would abolish unnecessary programs. People will accept that, provided that the evaluation system is done in an objective way and there are objective criteria whereby these programs can be evaluated.

The Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet has not shown any leadership whatsoever and therefore we end up with the kinds of expenditures which some of us in the opposition, and indeed many of the people in the government party, certainly have reasons to question. I look at the Chairman of Management Board and it seems to me that the only thing he seems confident of is spending money.

Here is the minister who is responsible for trying to make sure that government is run more efficiently. We look at what is happening and he shows an increase of 43 per cent in his administrative costs over four years. This is the fellow who is supposed to be teaching everybody else and kind of acting as the overseer on every other ministry to ensure that there is value for money and that the taxpayers are not taken to the cleaners, so to speak.

1650

Here is the ministry that has increased by twice its administrative costs at twice the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, the Minister of Health, on the other hand, is saying: “Hospitals must be run efficiently. We are going to cut back.” Heaven help those hospital administrators. They are the bad guys; they do not seem to know what they are doing. We are having patients waiting out in the emergency wards of hospitals, staying on stretchers for two or three days, while this government does not have the management skills to have some long-term planning and programs in effect to save the taxpayers money, money that can be reallocated to essential services such as our health care system.

Let me conclude on perhaps a more optimistic note. I see that in Canada today there is a real interest, as there is in the United States, in doing two things. One is in providing some essential services, but the other is that we recognize that in order to provide those essential services, we also have to run government more efficiently.

In Ontario, we have developed a standing committee on public accounts which, with all due modesty, I think is one of the best in Canada. certainly one of the two best in Canada. I see there are Liberal members who are applauding, and I think it is to their credit. Some of the Liberal back-benchers have contributed very well and have acted in a responsible way on the public accounts committee -- all of them. When members see the report we will be tabling very soon on mental health services in Ontario, they will see that the committee is acting in a very nonpartisan way and a very dedicated way. I think that is true also of the federal public accounts committee.

I think we have an excellent Provincial Auditor in Ontario. Mr. Archer and his staff have performed a tremendously important job, not just for Ontario but in showing the way to other provincial auditors on ways in which a man can operate in a nonpartisan and highly efficient manner and develop an audit system which certainly is to be commended.

On a national level, we will be moving in Halifax towards developing a basic system, a bare minimum, if you want, of how public accounts committees should operate in order to save the taxpayers money. I think that will help not just this province but a number of other provinces where public accounts committees operate probably a lot less efficiently than we have been able to develop over the last several years.

There are also some promising things in terms of regulatory supervision. Some of the things that are happening in the standing committee on regulations and private bills are to be seriously looked at. If you see that government is becoming more and more complicated, it is all the more necessary to make sure there is some accountability of regulations, that regulations are constitutional, that they make sense and that the regulators, who are public servants, are not acting in violation of the wishes of parliament and are not acting in an arbitrary or indiscriminate manner. There are some positive things that will likely come out in that report.

The Provincial Auditor has recommended a number of ways in which the estimates system can become much more effective, and the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will be bringing forth a very interesting paper with a number of parliamentary reforms advocated that I think will make government more accountable. It no longer makes sense to have an estimates system in which members go in with inadequate research for a very limited period of time, and simply ask whatever question comes off the top of their heads or may have been suggested by a constituent, without an adequate understanding of where the money is projected to be spent and examining whether or not there are proper objectives set and proper evaluations in place.

It seems to me that the proposal of dealing with only six ministries in depth, rather than trying to cover the whole gamut every year, makes some sense and will lead to more efficiencies. What I think we have to develop is a system of oversight committees, of estimates committees, that deal with the problems of spending before that money is spent. If that is done, then we in the public accounts end of it, the end that says, “Oh, my goodness, look at what has happened,” will probably have less to look at and will probably have fewer horror stories.

I think that the systems have been developed. that the theory is no longer a theory, that we now have enough case studies, that we now have enough research in the field, that we now have developed the processes to a stage where, while they may not be completely scientific, they are at least more scientific or more accurate than they have been in the past.

I urge this government not only to deal with the fun end, which is how much money we are going to spend, but also with how we can spend it more efficiently, how we can deal with the real problems. The only way to deal with the real problems is to cut back on the waste that has happened in some of the other areas.

With those words, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your attention and the attention of the members to some of my concerns about this budget and about the accountability process in Ontario.

Mr. Mahoney: I was not in the House during the entire speech, but I did see it on the monitor and I did see the last part of it here in the House.

I would actually like to echo some of the comments of the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts. I had an opportunity to travel with him and his committee to Ottawa and Washington to analyse the system of public accounts in both those communities. I think, clearly, we have one of the finest systems I have seen at any level of government.

We found numerous ways -- the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) will remember -- of cutting the budget deficits and reducing the debt in Washington and Ottawa, and I guess our job is really to concentrate on doing it here. But when one sees how the systems are in place in those other levels of government, most notably in Washington, the complexities are really rather incredible. It was a good experience for all members on all sides of the House on that committee to really have an opportunity to analyse how public accounts systems in the world are working effectively.

I would also add in a very serious way that I think it is a very nonpartisan committee and I think the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale does an excellent job chairing it. I was particularly impressed by the objectivity that was put forward by all members, the Liberal members as well as the members from his party and the Conservatives, in showing a real concern for coming up with new and creative ways to deal with the very serious accounting problems.

Under the leadership of Mr. Archer, I do agree fully with the chairman of the public accounts committee that we have a very fine, capable civil servant handling that department. It is an excellent committee, and I look forward to working with it again in the future.

Mr. Adams: I would also like to compliment the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I believe it is by ancient tradition that a member of the opposition chairs the public accounts committee. I am delighted that this government and this Legislature have followed that practice.

I too compliment the member on developing the use and organization of the public accounts committee in such an imaginative and disciplined way. As he said, this is an extremely important committee in terms of monitoring all aspects of government in Ontario.

I was particularly impressed as a new member to sit on that committee briefly and discover that we were looking, for example, into problems of acid precipitation. Normally, we would not relate public accounts to acid precipitation. Yet, clearly, acid precipitation controls involve enormous expense in Ontario, and the public accounts committee rightly looks at whether those funds have been properly expended. They did this, I thought, in an excellent and very efficient fashion.

The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is also following through with ways in which the public accounts committee can check on recommendations that it makes. He is making good use of the subcommittees. He is making, as has been mentioned, very good use of the auditor to follow up on recommendations which have been made. As he said, this has to be done nowadays, as government is very complicated, in a very efficient and pointed fashion. He is doing that.

Last, I would like to mention the matter of auditing in this government, that I like the way we are moving to a controlled but decentralized audit system.

1700

Mr. Philip: It is a new experience, I guess, for me not to have members of the other parties attacking my speeches. I am glad the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) missed perhaps the first part of my speech in which I was dealing with the specific contents of the budget. I would like to say that the Liberal government whip came to me and said, “We have a couple of members who are substituted on your committee and now they want to be part of the committee.” I am sure he was probably talking about the member for Mississauga West and the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), who did serve temporarily on the committee.

I can say that perhaps the reason they want to be part of the committee is that they asked good questions, got satisfaction and results as a result of their participation. Maybe doing things well is the reason for wanting to be part of a team. I can only say to the member for Mississauga West and the member for Peterborough that notwithstanding the other excellent members presently sitting on the committee, I hope they will be able to join the public accounts committee at some future date because they did make a positive contribution.

Mr. Cousens: As to these good friends who are now really starting to compliment each other, maybe it is time for some reality to be brought to the House. That is why the people of Ontario elected at least 17 of us to keep the truth alive. I would like to comment on some of that thinking, in spite of the fact that for once I did agree with the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale about the quality of the contribution of all members of this House in the public accounts committee. That is for the record. Our party recognizes that is an important role of government and that is a role I would like to take today in responsible opposition.

There are major pitfalls to this budget. If one were to put them into three general groupings, number one has to do with the fact that the people of Ontario will have less money in their pockets this year than last; number two has to do with the fact that we are going to see inflation return to Ontario; and number three is that we are going to see businesses increasingly dissatisfied with their opportunity for growth and advancement in the economy, in the environment for the economy that has been created by this government.

Every person is touched by this budget, from the smallest child who has to spend some money on an item he wants to buy to a senior citizen and to everyone in between, because now, with that one per cent increase in the retail sales tax, every citizen of this province is going to be hit just a little bit more. So are people who are middle-income earners. They are going to be hurt because they will be paying more taxes.

Possibly one of the biggest crimes of this budget is the fact that Ontario is going to take back the money the federal government was going to give us through revisions to the whole tax system in Canada. It is tragic because we are talking about a country that needs to grow and continue to have the pioneering spirit. What this budget says is: “Oh, no, we are going to build a government and that is going to be the new model. That is going to be the fortress for this country and for this province.” I disagree with that strongly.

The fact is that personal savings are decreasing in this province and the government’s savings are increasing, yet it still runs a deficit. I am referring, in fact, to Business Conditions, a Woods Gordon economic bulletin. It said: “Last year, for example. the personal saving rate fell more than two percentage points to 9.3 per cent, its lowest level since the early 70s. At the same time, consumer credit outstanding grew 16 per cent in 1987, far outstripping the 6.5 per cent growth in after-tax income. The ratio of consumer debt to income exceeds the 1981 prerecession level.”

We are talking about fundamental indicators that describe the economy as it affects individual citizens in this province. It means individuals are greater in debt personally this year than they were last year. It means they do not have enough money in the bank when bad times come to be able to spend on them. It means they have gone and taken out more debt for themselves in order to keep on living.

I am concerned with the amount of money they are now putting into the government coffers rather than into their own coffers so that it can go back and continue to help the consumers of this province.

I am very concerned that this government has hurt the economy in a fundamental way by hitting every person where it hurts, and that is in the pocketbook. Every person in this province has less money this year than he had last year.

I would also like to touch upon the fact that it is inflationary. It is inflationary because of what we are doing by building a larger empire called Queen’s Park, including the government ministries, the additional staff, the additional people. You have more government overhead and the moment you have more government overhead, the taxpayers in this province have to fuel that with their money.

Let me just quote, if I may, from the Financial Times of April 25, 1988. It says: “In the three years since the Liberals came to power, provincial spending has increased by $6 billion (a 31 per-cent rise), causing some economists to worry about the consequences of the economic slowdown that nearly everyone believes to be in the cards. ... DBRS President Walter Schroeder was only saying out loud what others have been thinking when he observed, ‘They’re spending like crazy.’”

This Liberal government is spending like crazy. One has just to start looking at some of the facts that are being tabled by economists and writers. Peter Cook in Report on Business in the Globe and Mail of Friday, March 4, said: “The reality is that the Peterson government is the least disciplined in the country and has pushed up spending at a rate of nearly 10 per cent a year for three years.”

This is the kind of outrageous thing that is going to cause our party to vote against this budget, and I hope that what is being said in this budget speech will cause some of the Liberal back-benchers to rethink their positions.

I am quoting again from Peter Cook in Report on Business: “Properly calculated, the province’s budget deficit after a six-year boom is more than $2 billion. Its credit rating remains at the level to which it was reduced by Standard and Poor’s rating agency of New York in 1985.” In other words, in 1985, they drove our credit rating down, increasing our interest rates, and it continues to be at that low level.

“Provincial debt per person stands at $5,835. compared with $3,900 five years ago -- proof of the way rising public revenues from a booming economy have been wasted by spendthrift politicians.” I want to absent myself from being one of those spendthrifts and I will be talking more at length on that one. This is going to fuel inflation. It is going to bring our economy to a different kind of situation in the future. This is not the way to build for the future.

I received a letter today from a constituent who touches on my third point, that point being that business is not happy. An environment is being created by this government that is discouraging business. I would like to quote a few paragraphs from my constituent. He says:

“Our astute politicians continue to lay more and more responsibilities at the door of the small businessman. Our knees are buckling, Don, and soon we will be flat on our faces. There is absolutely no motivation any more to be in private business when the bureaucrats and civil servants are managing to push laws through the political system which put us in a position of just being another employee.

“One has to wonder if it is not better to get out of business, let your employees look for another job and go out and work for somebody else who can have all the headaches.

1710

“The provincial government, as I understand, is now looking at employer-sponsored disability pension, extended health care services, pension reforms and a new consumer protection code which will simply raise prices. The conundrum is that we all end up paying more for the service.

“It seems that I am complaining all the time now. I think this simply comes from my growing old. I believe it is my body rebelling emotionally to mismanagement by government.

He says in words what so many business people are thinking. I am gratified that he wrote to me. I will not mention his name publicly, but I can assure you he comes from Thornhill, in the great town of Markham, and is an indicator of the number of people I have talked to who have asked: “Why is it that this government hasn’t done more for business? Why hasn’t it created a climate and an environment for business to prosper and for business to grow and for the province to continue to understand that it isn’t a free world, that there is a way of managing properly and fiscally responsibly?”

And so I come to the one word that describes this budget. It is simply a sad one. I want to take the letters in “sad” and just elaborate a little bit. because it underlines some of the concepts I have touched on in my initial beginning.

First of all, it is spendthrift. If there is anything that this government is doing, it is trying to slow down an overheated economy, and so what it is doing is putting money into more staff in the civil service in Ontario. Few people in this province realize that this budget will add an additional 2,626 more civil servants -- 2,626 additional employees being added to the great bureaucracy that has increased by 5,000 or more since the Premier came to power three years ago.

It took the Davis government six years to reduce the number of civil servants by 8,000, and yet in three years this government has increased it by over 5,000. I call that fiscal irresponsibility, and I call it something that is discouraging to industry. After 1981-82, when the recession was on, business had to cut back and it had to operate smarter. It had to sort of take things to task. What this government has done instead is just added, added and added: adding to the cost of government; adding to the people who make up the government; and consequently mortgaging the future of this province.

Unfortunately, if they were delivering on the key promises that are important to this province rather than just building a huge bureaucracy, then there would be something to brag about. Instead, we are seeing waste, we are seeing a kind of spending that says to the people of Ontario: “This government doesn’t care. As long as we can take your money, we’re going to spend it.”

I am very impressed at the action our caucus has taken. A letter was sent to the Premier yesterday from our critic for finance. We have tabled the largest number of questions in Orders and Notices in the Legislature in order to find out just what has happened to the moneys in the different ministries. We have asked the Premier to try to accelerate a response from those ministries, so that when we go into estimates we can have some answers to the very basic questions that we want to ask that have to do with budget allocation and the way ministries have overspent their funding.

If a government cannot come along and spend within the limits that it sets out within a budget, that is a serious erosion of the kind of trust people would have in government. We should be setting an example, not only of cutting back but also of living within our means once we have a budget struck. Even with this budget it will be very much like last year’s; we will continue to overspend in a number of areas.

This budget is sad because it is spendthrift, and also because of the arrogance that underlies it.

The member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) was raising the question about money for rape centres. The fact is there has not been that investment made to help protect women who have been attacked and who need help, even so there is enough spare change in the staff of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) that we could afford to do that.

We are concerned about the arrogance of a Premier who is going to shove through this House the Sunday shopping legislation. He is using his power to give away the power to the municipalities, and yet breaking down something of the fundamental thinking that people have had in this province for years as to what a day of rest, a pause day, is all about.

An arrogance exudes from the government seats that says: “We are going to do it our way. It doesn’t matter what the opposition thinks. It doesn’t matter what most of the people of the province think. It doesn’t matter what the Association of Municipalities of Ontario thinks. It doesn’t matter what the people of London North think.” Those who are thinking are saying:

“We don’t like what David Peterson is doing right now. We want to come along and stand up for the family unit. We want to have something that we have had traditionally.” When the people of London North had a chance to think out loud, they did it when they elected the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) just a few short weeks ago.

The people of Ontario do not like arrogance and they are not going to like it if the government continues to do it in such a way that it is hurting the very people who elected it. It is arrogant on housing, and I will go on at length in my remarks later about the failure of this government to live up to its promises. During the election campaign it said it would be building 102,000 affordable units by the end of 1989. Where are they? When are they coming? Where are they going to be built? The answers are not forthcoming. The answers we get from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) are deplorable.

When we had to come into this House and spend several days during the winter break to discuss the free trade agreement, it was another sign of the arrogance of this government. Some people forget it, but the fact is that this government had prejudged the free trade agreement long before it was in place and people had a chance to discuss it. It came along with a resolution in order to try to embarrass our Prime Minister when he was meeting with President Reagan. We had to come back in this House, again partly because of the inexperience of the government’s own House leader, who had broken an agreement with the other House leaders -- here was arrogance: “We’re going to do it our way, and it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.”

The fact is that we in this party are prepared to sit and sit as long as we can have a chance to raise the points that are important and to raise these issues so the public knows they are being said. If they are said in Hansard and we have put it on the record, that is an important role we have.

As long as there is arrogance, this is a sad day for Ontario, and this budget is full of it. It is spendthrift, it is arrogant and it is deficit-prone. If there was ever a budget that had a chance to get rid of the deficit, this was the one that could have done it. Good times are when you live within your means. You can plan for the future, you can store up for the future; but the fact is this government continues to carry a deficit.

I look at the report again -- I am quoting from Woods Gordon, who had a comment on the Ontario budget -- I would just like to quote a few words from it. They said in their commentary:

“The proposed $839-million decline in the budgetary deficit to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 1988-89 from $2.4 billion last year is a welcome development.” I read that at the beginning because it is welcome to see that there is an effort by the government to bring down the deficit. However, the Woods Gordon report goes on to say:

“We remain concerned that the province continues to accumulate significant additional debt during a period of sustained, above-average growth. As a result, Ontario’s public debt interest costs as a share of budgetary revenue remain well above the levels recorded at the beginning of the decade. In our view, the Treasurer will have to continue his deficit-cutting effort in future budgets in order to redress this problem.”

We should not, categorically, have a deficit in times like these. What we are really doing is clouding the future, because the future will have to carry the cost of the things we are enjoying today.

It is a sad budget, and it is not a good budget for the riding of Markham or for York region either. I would like to touch upon some of the concerns that have to do with our community.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member talks about Markham, as many others do. They ask, “What have you done for housing?” I will touch on that. There are many things we have done for it, but I have to tell members it has to be a co-operative venture between our communities and the province. It cannot be the kind of relationship where the province is coming along and saying “You have to do this, this and this,” and does not do anything to help carry the cost.

1720

I have to suggest the number one concern to the people of our community is the construction of Highway 407. I would like to compliment my neighbour and friend, the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara), who has always been there fighting with me to get Highway 407 launched, which we did last year just prior to the election campaign. We saw the shovels go in the ground and a little bit got started. Approximately $25 million was invested last year in constructing Highway 407.

To build Highway 407 between Highway 404 and Highway 427 is going to take over $650 million. At last year’s rate of expenditure, it will take 25 years for us to have Highway 407 built. It is going to take 25 years for people to begin to enjoy the benefits of it. It is going to take 25 years to relieve some of the traffic congestion on both Highway 7 and Highway 401. Highway 407 is a major road that is needed in Ontario, not just for York region but for all the neighbouring areas and for tourism and for a host of reasons.

How much money is being invested in it? I have a question in Orders and Notices asking the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to give us an indication of how much is going to be spent on Highway 407 this year and in future years, so we can get some indication. Is it still going to be 25 years before it is built? If that is the case, then this province should be doing something about it. The Minister of Transportation has a responsibility to see that it goes faster.

I am concerned as well about the transportation problems in York region with the use of GO Transit. Let us say at the beginning that GO Transit is one of the most efficient and best-run transit systems in North America. We know that and we are grateful for it, but why is it that the services are so much better on the east-west routes?

If you are coming from Oakville into Toronto or if you are coming from Oshawa into Toronto, you have service all day long. You have a consistent service and you are always able to pick a ride up and back. If you are coming through Markham, Unionville or Milliken, there is one train down in the morning and one train back at night. If you are coming from Richmond Hill through Thornhill-Langstaff, there are three trains down and three trains back each day. This is the same service that was launched in 1976 for the Richmond Hill-Thornhill line and it is the same service that was launched in 1981 for Markham, Unionville and Milliken.

Why then has this government not done something to address the needs of a growing population north of Steeles Avenue? Why have they not come along and put more trains on those lines? Meanwhile, the Don Valley Parkway is glutted. It is like a slow-moving parking lot. Why can they not have more trains? Why can they not have more service? Why was there not something in this budget about it?

We are talking about an increased population that is going up by almost 30 per cent a year. It is an incredible growth that is going on in York region. We cannot have people moving up there and not provide the services for them. As provincial representatives we must do more to meet those needs. The rail lines are built. Why not have more service?

I am prepared to work with the Ministry of Transportation. I am prepared to work with anyone to help see that we address and resolve these problems; because transportation is important, not only to the people that want to move, to get to their job and get home from work, it is also important for commerce to get all the things that go on in business, to deliver the utensils, the computers, whatever it is you are doing. Right now, Highway 7 just does not work any more and we need to have far more investment in GO Transit and roads.

When we look at the costs of education, we are all concerned that education has to be a major priority because our children are our most important resource for the future of this province. I am pleased that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) announced the capital allocations for new schools, as he did this year for both the York region public board and the York region separate board. We do not take it for granted. We cannot build the schools without the approval by the minister.

Yet the very money we are spending is the money of the taxpayers in York region. The province does not pay as much as it used to when it is talking about those schools. It comes from the taxpayers. All we have done is get the approval to go ahead and build the schools. We are glad to have them. We have enough new people that we need the schools, but the money really does not come from the province; it comes from the ratepayers in York region.

That touches upon a fundamental flaw in this government.

Sixty per cent of the education dollar is being picked up by the property owners, by the ratepayers around this province. The government of Ontario is passing that cost from itself to the local ratepayers and the local property owners. Why has there not been any attempt to look at the way in which the government should share the proper and full cost of education fairly, the way it was done when the large regional boards were introduced in 1969? At that time, the province paid 60 per cent of the costs and the local ratepayers paid about 40 per cent. Gradually, year by year. the cost has been shifted to the local ratepayers.

I am telling members that those senior citizens who are on fixed incomes are having a difficult time paying the increased amount in taxes every year. There has to be a review of the costs of education and where the money is going to come from. It is wrong, absolutely wrong, that the government is continuing to burden the local ratepayers with the cost of all education the way it is.

It is also wrong that the government of Ontario does not allow emergency funding to be spent. Again, it is not the provincial money; it is local money in York region that would be spent. If we knew that next year, when there is going to be a surplus of students in different parts of the riding because of the extensive amount of growth that has taken place, we could build schools when we need to. If the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board knew in November that a large number of people had moved into a subdivision, it could start to get the architects, to get the land set aside and to get the contractor and could have a school built and ready for use 10 months later, so that the following September students who had been crowded into portables would have a chance to be in their own school.

We are talking about an area that is growing faster than probably any other area in North America; and it also includes my good friends from York region, who are also suffering this as a major problem. This government has to look at ways of responding to need when that need takes place. It is an emergency and not something you can look at frivolously. I am disgusted that some members in the House think it is frivolous or fun. It is not.

We are talking about children. They are our most important asset and anything we do should be in support of making sure that they have a good education. You just have to go and see it. When you go to St. Matthew school and some of these other places, you are talking about whole schools full of portables on mud, you are talking about libraries that do not exist -- the books are in boxes -- and you are talking about washrooms that really cannot be used even by the numbers that need them. So let’s talk about education and let’s put money where it should be and not just put it into more administration.

If the government is talking about a growth area, that area should not be sacrificed just because the government is saying, “Oh well, you’ve got lots of money up in York region.” We also have people coming in who are paying a full tax dollar and are not getting a full service, and that is of great concern to me.

I am worried about health care and the possibility that what is happening to the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa -- where the province of Ontario has said, “They had a deficit this year and they had a deficit last year. Because of that, we are just not going to he able to do anything for them. They are going to have to cut back on services” -- could happen to York Central Hospital.

I would like to go on record as saying that York Central Hospital is an excellent facility. I am talking about a hospital that serves the communities in a very good way. Their outpatient services are running at over 100 per cent. I know the maternity ward and many people who have gone to that hospital. You can go through the different services of that hospital one by one. They are superb.

Now I am worried. If York Central Hospital has a deficit that is anything like the one Riverside has had, could we see cutbacks at York Central Hospital this year? Is there any possibility that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is going to say, “You’ve got to live within your means”? That would be a failure to understand the growth that is going on in Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Markham, the service areas served by York Central Hospital. I am very concerned with the quality of care that our community must continue to have.

As critic for senior citizens’ affairs, I would like to make a comment about the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). I happen to think she is doing an outstanding job and would like to commend her for her dedication to seniors. She is committed and is indeed trying her best. I just wish that the ministries that are in support of senior citizens could somehow respond to her leadership, because she is certainly trying to do a job for seniors.

The problem we have is that there are places like Greenacres Home for the Aged in Newmarket, which is a Metropolitan Toronto home for the aged, that has over 57 beds empty. We are talking about waiting lists all across the province and the province is allowing that facility to go down in use before we get the new senior citizens’ nursing home beds available in the region.

I have raised this point in the House before. I have raised it with the ministers responsible for it. There is just no excuse that the province will treat its senior citizens in any way less than honourable.

We talk about people in York region who have spent three months trying to find a place in which to place a relative and they cannot find one until they get one some distance from home. At the same time, there are 57 empty beds in York region at Greenacres. That is just contemptible. Why can we not have some kind of transition plan to use those existing beds, to allow them to be used until the new ones are built?

This government will not do that. This government has refused to listen to the pleas and entreaties of the member for York North (Mr. Beer) and many others who have come along and said, “Let’s do something about it.”

I am concerned about the environment in York region. I do not think any of us can step away from the problems of the environment. It is a global issue when you are talking about the destruction of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect that is taking place and the destruction of our Great Lakes and the oceans. If it is a global issue, people tend to think, “It is not my problem.” I believe we should think globally and act locally. Anything we can do within our own home areas, within our own communities, should be encouraged to help make for a better environment.

Why is it we do not have some kind of encouragement from this province to encourage recycling? It would be another natural way for people to say: “Less waste to be burned and destroyed. We can recycle our paper, our bottles and our tin cans.” It would reduce the amount of garbage by 15 per cent if we had a comprehensive recycling program in this province.

Mr. Furlong: Doesn’t Markham have one?

Mr. Cousens: Markham does not have one, but Markham will probably have one by the end of this year and that is good news.

The province could be helping to encourage this kind of program, working with industry to find places that can use the paper, use the bottles and take the cans. We have to do our share. Every one of us has to do what he can to help recycling and to help the environment. Every one of us has to do what he can to maintain the greenbelts, the green areas and the parklands.

This province comes along and thinks it will take the Rouge Valley and destroy part of that. They have 20 acres they are considering using for housing. This government thinks the people of Scarborough or Markham are going to sit down idly while it comes along and takes away a natural resource, never to be replaced, and puts housing on it.

Here is the problem: here I am the Housing critic saying we need houses, but I am saying on the other hand that we do not need to jeopardize our natural environment at the same time. I am saying I want my cake and I want to eat it too. I am saying we have to protect the environment. There is a sense of responsibility to the environment and there is a sense of responsibility for housing. but do not come along and destroy natural areas that can never be brought back.

It was the Davis government years ago that began to see what was happening in the Niagara Peninsula and did something about it. May this government not go down in history as the one that destroyed the Rouge Valley.

This government has a chance to do something about Uplands Golf and Country Club. I am proud of the way the people of Thornhill and Vaughan have worked to preserve historic Uplands and the way they have worked with the council of Vaughan to get some funding to help retain part of Uplands. It has been an excellent example of the community working with the town council to make something happen.

Where has the province been when people have come to the Ministry of Natural Resources or to some other agency, especially starting with the Premier, for help to preserve Uplands? There has been no help to date from this government to preserve Uplands, and the people of south York region are concerned because we know the value of greenbelts; we know the importance of maintaining our heritage; we know the importance of maintaining farm and agricultural lands; and we know it is not going to happen unless we have a commitment to make it happen.

When a government comes along and just allows the destruction of forests and greenbelts haphazardly. as could happen with the Rouge Valley and Uplands, this in itself is something that is a crisis all of us should be alarmed about and all of us should make a commitment to fight for.

There is so much that is happening in south York region when it comes to environment. We happen to have one of the largest dumps. Keele Valley dump is where Metropolitan Toronto gets rid of its garbage in Vaughan and lots of things are being thrown into that dump that should not be there.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, that is not true, Don. Come on.

Mr. Cousens: Well, it is and the fact is that we are seeing garbage that is coming from the Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is not happening, Don.

Mr. Cousens: It did happen and the member knows full well it happened. The fact is that we have a dump that is not being properly supervised. It is going to be filled up before we know what is going to happen. There are rumours that they are thinking of opening up another dump in another part of south York region. I am just saying that this province has to begin to take far more seriously the whole garbage issue of the province of Ontario, and should not just be throwing it off to a municipality and saying: “Hey, Toronto, solve your problem. York region, solve your problem. Tiny Township, solve your problem.” The province should be involved in protecting the environment for the long term.

I am very fortunate that I live in a community of Markham that continues to try to work together with this government. I can make the commitment that I personally will do everything I can to work in a positive way with all ministers responsible for serving the communities. I have to say the attitude now is not one of co-operation and trust. I have a fear this government has a sense that. “We’re going to do it our way,” arrogantly, and not do it in a consensus-building co-operative venture.

I would like to comment if I could for a few moments on the housing budget. When you think of what has happened in housing and what has not happened, there are a number of points I would like to table. In fact, the 1988 budget verifies the dire need for a definitive housing policy that is workable and underscores the need, not just for a significant increase in housing starts, but moreover a major increase in completions, all of which are lacking in this new budget. The Treasurer’s budget indicates that at least 110,000 new residents moved to Ontario in 1987.

While adding strength to the economy, this upsurge in migration puts an indelible, severe strain on the rental and housing market. The bottom line is this: in spite of new moneys allocated, very little and certainly not nearly enough housing is being provided and the impact of this strain is that no one can buy a home. Given the tremendous influx of people into Ontario and realizing that at least 50,000 people move into Toronto every year, Toronto will become home for at the very least 250,000 new people in five years’ time.

The government’s announcement that it will now encourage the building of 30,000 nonprofit units in the next three to five years is really a minute drop in the bucket. It will not come anywhere near solving the serious and severe housing crisis. In his budget, the Treasurer says that housing is not just government responsibility, but that the private sector must also do its part in meeting affordable housing needs. If this is what the government really means and what Ontario needs, why does the government not consider adjusting the rent control regime to encourage private rental and private housing starts?

This budget deals only with nonprofit and assisted housing, but shamefully enough gives builders and developers no incentive whatsoever to build. The only sector the Liberals are encouraging is the nonprofit sector. The government is not addressing its responsibility to encourage the private sector and is in fact thwarting any private sector efforts to increase the housing supply in Ontario.

1740

Numerous provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and now Quebec, have been problem free without restrictive rent controls. We can learn from them. Our chronically depressed rental units in Toronto are due to oppressive rent controls. These buildings have not been changing with the market. Their quality, as a result, is very low, and in many instances akin to an extremely poor. underdeveloped country. which Canada is not. Canada has always prided itself on being a country with a high standard of living. but the housing catastrophe is closing in upon us, and the Liberal government policies are not helping any. By focusing on the nonprofit sector and actually taking over the housing industry, the Liberal government is operating as a completely socialist state. This does not make sense, as this is not the New Democratic Party but the Liberal Party.

The government has the audacity to get itself into a business it really does not know. Why not let those qualified in the private sector, the builders and the contractors who know the housing business, do their job? By ignoring the private sector, which should be encouraged to take part in rental housing, the government is paving the way for people of all income levels to depend on some form of subsidization. This trend will only add to the friction and headaches the Ministry of Housing is now experiencing and is a backward method that is shortsighted. It is not a solution to the affordability and supply crisis. Subsidies are a knee-jerk reaction and a Band-Aid solution, a type of policy the Minister of Housing is now famous for. A policy that covers up is not a cure.

With regard to nonprofit housing in the new Liberal budget, the government indicates that it will provide an additional $210 million to support the operation of nonprofit rental units, which will mean up to 70 per cent of those will be available on a rent geared-to-income basis. What about the other 30 per cent? Why not serve all those who have a need, if that is what it is talking about?

In the Ministry of Housing report it states that $10 billion of work in renovation is required to bring all buildings in Ontario up to date to acceptable building standards.

As to borrowing funds from the Canada pension plan for the government’s proposed housing development fund, consider the argument of the Premier four years ago when he took a definitive stand in principle against borrowing from the Canada pension plan and argued that borrowing money at below market rates through the Canada pension plan corrupts government mentality. Now he is doing it.

By far the biggest scam of all is the Ontario home ownership savings plan, which is so minuscule a savings and so craftily conceived that it is highly doubtful that anyone could look to it for realistic help in purchasing a home.

It is obvious to those who live in Metro and centres such as London, Kitchener-Waterloo and others, that saving money is a hardship enough for the well-off but a virtual impossibility for the low- to middle-income earner. To top it all off, this plan is simply a tax credit which, for a person who earns $20,000, amounts to only $500 at most.

If the government wants to show real concern for housing, the money from land transfer taxes should go towards the housing development fund. At least $500 million from these taxes could be used to build affordable housing and also create a greater supply of land.

I have the figures from the government on how much money was taken from York region through the Ontario land transfer tax. Last year alone it was $63 million, up from $12 million in 1984-85 -- a five-fold increase.

I know that others want to participate in this debate. I am concerned that this government has failed to meet the needs of this province. It has failed to meet the needs of those who want to buy a home. It has failed to meet the needs of those who want to build a business. It has failed to meet the needs of those people who want to save some money. It has failed. Because of that, I am not going to support this when it comes to a vote in this House. I will vote against it, as will the Progressive Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really cannot resist making at least a couple of comments on the speech of my friend the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). He and I, of course, work together in York region, and we work well side by side. As usual, he is articulate and eloquent, probably even more articulate and eloquent than he was in his former profession of preaching from the pulpit.

As I listen to my friend from Markham, when I listen to him talking about the environment, when I listen to him talking about the importance of education and when I listen to him talking about the needs of a growing region, I think sometimes that my friend from Markham is a closet Liberal who simply did not get the Liberal nomination in the constituency that he represents. But there is one fatal flaw, and that is inconsistency.

My friend from Markham talks about all of the things we must do in York region. He talked about Highway 407. He talked about the fact that we do not have enough transportation. He did not mention the fact that in our own region we still have a lot of work to do on providing the social service facilities and the community facilities that a growing region like Markham and York region, my own communities of Richmond Hill and Vaughan, are desperately in need of, and we are on an agenda to do those.

But now, the point of inconsistency: my friend from Markham says we need to do all these things, and he says at the same time that we should, as a government, spend a lot less and have one singular goal, and that is to balance the budget. That is what sets him apart. That is the main theme of his speech, inconsistency, and that is why my friend from Markham --

Hon. Mr. Conway: I believe they call that sucking and blowing at the same time.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The government House leader calls it “sucking and blowing.” Perhaps that is it, but I think that points out why he is in the opposition in that party, while really he belongs over here with the government and this party.

Mr. Beer: I would like to join with my fellow York region colleagues in this debate and to agree with the Minister of Labour that we would be delighted to have the member for Markham come this way and join us, because we know that, among all other things, he is a very fine fellow and I think would fit in very well.

I would just like to comment on several things that he mentioned in his speech, because I think there are some hopeful signs, perhaps more hopeful than he would want to indicate.

First of all, in terms of housing, I think all the reports that, certainly I have been getting back from the various meetings the Premier and the Minister of Housing have been having with the regional chairs and with the mayors of the different municipalities, indicate that there is definitely a spirit of co-operation; that what the Premier and the minister have put forward is that we want to work together with those municipalities in providing the affordable housing that we require; that this is the message that is coming from those meetings; and that some of the structures that are being changed to ensure that we can cut through lots of the red tape and get the kind of housing we need are going forward. I think that is positive.

Second, in terms of the hospitals, York Central and York County, I think we all agree that those are two fine hospitals and we want to see them flourish, but we also recognize that in terms of the process that is under way they have projected a deficit. In the case of York Central, they have sat down with the ministry and they are working out a way to resolve that problem, and York County is going to be doing the same thing in a week or so. I think it is through that co-operative spirit that we will be able to find the solution. Most important -- and I know the member joins me in this -- we need a district health council in York region and we all want to work towards that end.

Finally, I would commend the article in the Newmarket Era of yesterday about Greenacres Home for the Aged. I think we are going to see some good things happen in the next week or so.

Mr. Campbell: I am really concerned about the member’s attitude, because earlier in the speech the member for Markham talked about increased costs. On some of the ministries that were mentioned by the leader of the third party, and I expect that is what the member for Markham is dealing with when he speaks about that, the leader of the third party was quoted as saying that this is not money going to programs or capital projects but indeed going to support the bureaucracy of an increasingly bloated government.

I know the gentleman is an honourable man, but I sort of question the attitude over there, preventing those much-needed jobs going to northern Ontario. It is not a bloated, increased bureaucracy. it is the moving of those jobs to where they properly should be. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is moving to Sudbury and other ministries moving to other parts.

1750

It is coincidental that some of the costs that have been outlined or highlighted by my friends across the way have been dealing with the ministries that are making those very valuable moves to provide impetus in the northern Ontario economy, as they can share with the southern Ontario economy. I would point out that that kind of statement only inflames and highlights the performance of the previous government in not dealing properly with the problems of northern Ontario.

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to take a little different tack. With all due respect, I am sure the member is an honourable gentleman. We are already pretty crowded over here so we do not need him at the present time.

The other thing, of course, is that we all know that there will be another Liberal in the House once the by-election for Welland-Thorold takes place, pending the recent announcement of the retirement of that great member of this House. So we have plenty of members here to take care of things.

I too find some interesting aspects in the inconsistency, not only from the member but also from his party. I can recall over the years, in my nine years as a municipal representative in Mississauga and Peel, coming down to the Bill Davis government in the year of Dr. Bette Stephenson, the Minister of Education, and saying: “Should we be releasing more land for development in our city because we are concerned about schools?”

I can recall Dr. Bette Stephenson, in a meeting down here at Queen’s Park, telling us: “No one in Peel has gone to school in a tent. There is nothing to worry about. Go ahead and release the land, and we will make sure the money is there.” It almost seems like no one was looking too far into the future in those days, under the rule of the member’s party, and we have wound up with a serious, serious problem on our hands in my community and in the member’s community that he referred to in education.

I hear the member criticizing education, and yet his overall community received $111 million in grants this year for capital purposes. I do not have the exact figure, but maybe the member can tell me. I understand that Markham received the lion’s share of the education grants that went into York region.

Here is a government that has, indeed, recognized the shortcomings of past governments, the lack of long-range planning, the lack of vision, and we have to react with a budget to try to resolve the mistakes made by former ministers under the member’s party.

Mr. Cousens: I am grateful that other honourable members were participating and responding to my comments.

I guess the problem with a Conservative is that when the member for York Centre calls one inconsistent, as did some of the others, it just so happens that we have a philosophical base from which we operate that says we believe in a progressive social policy and a conservative economic principle. We also believe in putting the family number one. So when we put those three things together, there are times when we have to do a little pushing and pulling.

The underlying concern that I have as a politician is that we serve the people of Ontario. The fact is that the people in York region, because of the efforts of myself and the other members in York region, have been very successful in fighting for our community. We need to continue to do that but we also have to fight for the principle of fiscal responsibility in the government. I do not think the two things are inconsistent. On the one hand, I am looking for resources and help for a growing community and, on the other hand, I am saying the government has to control its expenditures and its costs.

I would not for a moment do anything to hurt northern Ontario, as the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) has alluded to. I think we all recognize that there are needs in the north and in eastern Ontario, and when we are elected to this House, we are to serve all the province. But I believe it starts with having a good home, a good home here. This House has to be fiscally responsible itself in order to set the example, to maintain the economy and to build an environment that is going to help this province to be strong.

I believe we are on the way to doing many good things. I am pleased to have the support of this government for my region. I know there are things that need to be done to do it better but, to start with, we have to have our own House in order, and here at Queen’s Park it is not. We cannot live beyond our means the way this House does. We have to be fiscally responsible right from day one.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just before I wish all of the honourable members a good Victoria Day weekend, I want to state to the House that, pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

The House will not meet on Monday, May 23, Victoria Day. I see disappointment on the faces of several members.

On Tuesday, May 24, we will consider second reading of Bill 107, Child and Family Services Amendment Act, followed by, if time permits, second reading of Bill 5, Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Bill 6, Execution Amendment Act; Bill 7, International Commercial Arbitration Act; Bill 90, International Sale of Goods Act; Bill 98, Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Amendment Act, and Bill 132, Mining Amendment Act.

On Wednesday, May 25, we will continue with second reading, followed by committee of the whole House, on Bill 116, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Act. If there is any time remaining, we will consider legislation not completed on Tuesday.

On Thursday, May 26, in the morning, the House will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). In the afternoon, we will deal with government notice of motion 10, followed by the supply bill to be introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

That is the business of the House for next week. Now, on behalf of the government House leader to all members, we should all have a very good Victoria Day weekend.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.