L070 - Mon 30 May 1988 / Lun 30 mai 1988
GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT
EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
Prayers.
MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mrs. Grier: Today marks the opening of Canadian Environment Week. I regret to find that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will not be in the House to mark it with us. He is, of course, making a grand speech somewhere, allowing the media a full photo opportunity. After all, that is his job.
Meanwhile, we have seen almost an entire session of this Legislature pass with no new initiatives having been taken by the government to protect the environment. Where is the long-promised policy on intervener funding? Where are legislation and standards to protect our drinking water, an issue made even more critical by events such as last week’s chemical spill in the St. Clair River? Have private projects been brought under the Environmental Assessment Act? No. We have a discussion document on that issue and another one on a new air pollution regulation, but no legislation.
The only piece of environmental legislation before the House this session has been my private member’s bill to enact an environmental bill of rights. It reached the standing committee on resources development before being derailed and deferred by the government majority.
Then there is the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, the cornerstone of the government’s pollution control program and problem. The timetable for implementation proudly announced by the minister in June 1986 said that, of the nine industrial sectors, seven would have monitoring regulations in place by June 1988. We are almost into June, and guess how many monitoring regulations have been issued? Not one.
It is a sad commentary with which to begin Canadian Environment Week.
ROUGE VALLEY
Mr. Cousens: This is Canadian Environment Week. I would like to illuminate the public on the lack of environmental leadership that we are experiencing in this province. Let us consider the Rouge Valley, an environmentally significant area and the last green door in Metro Toronto. While the city of Scarborough has taken a stand to promote regional-scale open space, recreation and rural heritage in the Rouge Valley, the Liberal government, the major landowner, has yet to come up with a plan that it can stick to.
This government makes its decisions by headline. One day housing is important; so the government says, “Let us put houses in the Rouge.” The next day garbage disposal is important; so the government says, “Let us put landfill in the Rouge.” Now provincial parks are the issue; so the Liberals want to make a park out of the Rouge. By default, they have finally come to their senses. This Liberal government has managed to turn 360 degrees and is back to the original provincial plan for the Rouge.
The previous Tory government supported a park concept for the northeastern Scarborough lands since the early 1970s. The present Liberal government must stick to this plan now and support Scarborough’s decision to keep open the last green door of Metro Toronto.
How can the Minister of the Environment expect this crisis to be resolved if he will not even co-operate with Metro and regional officials and sit down at the same table to ensure that there is an all-out, co-ordinated effort to tackle this mountainous problem?
SMALL UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Adams: I rise to draw the attention of the House to the importance of the small universities within the higher-education system of this province. In these days of limited funds, there is a great danger in education and elsewhere of thinking in terms of “big is better” rather than “small is beautiful.” We assume that the economies of scale automatically apply to universities in the same way they do to other institutions in our society.
I submit that the strength of our university system lies in the spectrum of institutions rather than in one or a few of those institutions. Within that spectrum, the small universities have a special place, nurturing students in a personalized, educational environment, allowing our young people to mature in an institution which they feel they can influence rather than simply being influenced by it. This gives them a confidence which lasts for life.
I urge the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) to use her personal influence and knowledge to counteract the natural but unhealthy tendency for the interests of the large universities to override those of the small.
CHRISTIANITY IN THE UKRAINE
Mr. Philip: Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and I had an opportunity to participate in an ecumenical service in front of the parliament buildings. This service, organized by the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, commemorated the 1,000th anniversary of the beginnings of Christianity in the Ukraine, which can be traced to the missionary activities of St. Andrew.
Congratulations should be offered to the Ukrainian Canadian Committee on a very successfully organized activity and to the 4,000 people who gave up their Sunday afternoon in very warm weather to participate in this memorial celebration.
It is ironic that at a time when hostility between the world’s greatest powers is being diminished, Christians are still being persecuted for practising their faith in the Ukraine. Let us hope that the service held yesterday in front of our democratic parliament and similar services throughout the world have made an impression on the Kremlin leaders. Let us hope that glasnost and perestroika will be extended to the treatment of practising Christians in the Ukraine.
SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just recently, I received a letter from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), reminding all members of this Legislature that this week, May 29 to June 4, is National Access Awareness Week. “Partners in community action with disabled persons” is what the booklet says.
I would like the minister to know that I strongly support his initiatives to make life better for disabled citizens, but I truly wonder if his government shares the same commitment. I would like to use three examples of ministries that have not followed his instructions.
Ministry of Natural Resources: By banning the use of outboard motors, including those tiny, silent, electric motors, in 91 wilderness and nature reserve parks – 10.5 million acres – the ministry is denying access to these parks to thousands of our elderly and disabled citizens.
Ministry responsible for senior citizens’ affairs: Disabled seniors living in two-storey senior citizens’ apartment buildings are being denied access to their own homes or apartments if they become disabled and cannot use the stairs and there are no elevators in those buildings. This is a responsibility someone in the ministry has to take on.
The Ministry of Health is not providing adequate funding for orthopaedic and arthritic hospitals, so many disabled people are placed on surgical waiting lists of two or more years. This certainly is an example of a government that really is not serious about the wellbeing of the disabled citizens of our province, as it should be.
1340
Mr. Cousens: The people around Metropolitan Toronto are becoming increasingly unhappy with the problems we are having now in this city with --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There was a Liberal member whom I did not see, the member for Halton North, pardon me.
ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM
Mr. Elliot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a statement supporting one of our neighbours, the Royal Ontario Museum.
On the invitation of the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and Joan Thompson, deputy chairman of the board of trustees of the ROM, 15 representatives of the Liberal caucus visited the museum on Tuesday, May 17. We visited the museum primarily to hear a presentation on the museum’s outreach program, but we were also privileged while there to take part in a tour of the Treasures of the Holy Land exhibit, which opened May 9 and continues until September 5, 1988.
The outreach program at the Royal Ontario Museum is comprehensive. I would like to highlight two features of it in this statement. One package is called the Skyshow Learning Resources Package. This includes a full-colour wall chart, a 26-page student manual and an 11-page teacher’s manual. This package contains 13 different sun topics.
A second package is called the resource-box program. ROM resource boxes contain museum materials available for loan only to teachers. There are 29 resource box topics listed in the ROM literature, covering such diverse topics as fossils, minerals, dinosaurs and 19th-century writing. A resource box labelled Insects could be used by a kindergarten teacher or a biology teacher on insect classification.
We came away from the ROM with the distinct impression that we are fortunate to have --
The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Order, please.
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr. Reville: I have a letter from a patient in Ontario waiting 10 months for hip surgery, who thinks the government’s response is completely shocking, without any compassion and somewhat callous on the part of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).
It tells this writer that our society should not expect the best when it comes to health care, even though we have contributed our best to make this province and our society the best, to quote the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) election rhetoric.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND
Hon. Mr. Patten: The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and I last month announced that five government-owned sites in Metropolitan Toronto would be made available under the Housing First policy to create more housing for low- and moderate-income earners. At that time, I stated that this policy of providing government-owned sites for housing would be applied across the province.
Earlier today, I talked with Bill Sears, regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth, and Dan Napper, mayor of Stoney Creek, and I am pleased to announce a major housing undertaking on 97 acres of land in Stoney Creek, a community of some 45,000 people near Hamilton. This is for the purpose of creating more affordable housing for Hamilton-Wentworth.
My colleague the Minister of Housing and the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins) today are making similar statements about our new plans for the Stoney Creek site. Heritage Green is the name of the community. It is located on Stoney Creek mountain, north of Highway 53 and west of Highway 20. It is a planned community designed to provide a broad range of housing from large-lot single units to medium-and higher-density residential blocks.
To date, 1,450 units have been constructed on 377 acres. The remaining 950 acres of provincial land have the potential of producing an additional 6,500 housing units with institutional, recreational and commercial facilities over the next 10, 15 or 20 years.
In the coming months, my ministry is moving to develop and market 45 acres with the potential of 420 housing units, including a mixture of detached and multiple-family homes. We also expect approval this summer on a draft plan to develop a further 52 acres of Heritage Green, providing additional single-family, semidetached and medium-density units.
My ministry has completed a comprehensive, secondary planning study for the remaining lands. The secondary plan is now before the city of Stoney Creek and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth for approval. Once approved, the plan will establish land-use designations and development patterns for many years to come.
In these plans, special attention has been given to promoting Housing First programs by making sites available to create affordable housing. When completed, approximately one third -- closer to 35 per cent in fact -- of the Heritage Green development will be housing for low- and moderate-income earners.
As well as the sites in today’s announcement, my ministry has just completed the sale of 163 serviced lots in Heritage Green and we anticipate construction of housing will begin next month. Proceeds from the lots sold to commercial developers for single-family and semi-detached housing will of course be applied to the housing development fund announced by my colleague the Minister of Housing last month.
Throughout the development of the Heritage Green community, the provincial government has worked hard and worked hand in hand with Stoney Creek to plan balanced neighbourhoods on these government-owned lands. This process will continue as more lands are released in the coming months and it underlines our commitment to work in partnership with municipalities. Developing surplus provincial lands is just one part of the solution of current housing situations, but it is an important demonstration of our recognition of the need and our political will to act.
We intend to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province and sites within and around Metropolitan Toronto.
RESPONSES
HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND
Mr. B. Rae: I think it is important for the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and this government to come clean in terms of what they are doing. When they announce that they are making surplus land available for housing, buried at the end of the statement is the description of what this government is doing. What it is doing, in fact, is selling off land to private commercial development so that the government makes money off that sale and then, having taken that money, it puts it into something called its housing fund, which is going to be used one day to produce other kinds of accommodation -- what is referred to as affordable accommodation of one kind and another.
The minister is shaking his head. What I heard him say and what I see in the statement today is that they have “completed the sale of 163 serviced lots in Heritage Green and we anticipate construction of housing will begin next month. Proceeds from the lots sold... for single-family and semi-detached housing will... be applied to the housing development fund announced by my colleague the Minister of Housing” in March.
The minister is saying that and, as I understand it, what we are seeing is precisely the same problem we have had in Malvern. Instead of directly using government land for the construction of affordable housing, what the government is doing is, at least in part, selling off that land and putting that money into a fund which will be used to build housing.
Where? The answer is “Someplace else.” That is the problem. What we have is a government where the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) together with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) sit down and talk to the municipalities and make it sound as if they are going to get really tough about how the municipalities are supposed to plan in terms of affordable housing. But when it comes to its own land, what we see is a government that is prepared to do precisely what municipal governments are doing, precisely what private developers are doing, precisely what is the problem, and that is to sell off available land in exchange for money which will be used for whatever purposes the government decides it will be used for.
It is all very well to say we are building up money in the housing fund, but it does not provide shelter for people who need it, it does not provide a roof over the heads of families who want it and it does not deal directly with the problem. What we face is not a shortage of money; what we face is a shortage of land -- serviced land -- and lots which the government is prepared to use on behalf of those who need it most.
While all looks sufficiently rosy indeed for the minister to be away together with her colleague to make the announcement, buried within the announcement is an indication that the government is a speculator and a developer just like everybody else. That is what troubles me. What troubles me is that the government is not using its land for the most affordable kind of housing; it is using its land to sell off to development.
1350
Mr. Philip: On the minister’s statement, what we still are lacking in this province is a comprehensive audit and plan for the use of crown land to create directly affordable housing for the people who are in need of that housing. This proposal does not do anything to solve that problem.
We have been waiting for years and years with both this government and the previous government. This government announced it was going to do the adequate audits, and we still have not had those audits. We still do not know exactly where it plans on using the crown land or if it plans on using it all directly to create some affordable housing.
There is nothing in this statement that suggests the price range at which this housing that is being created will come in. We can tell by the description that certainly what is going to be constructed on that site, on crown land, will hardly be affordable housing. There will be detached homes, and I am willing to bet they will cost $200,000 or higher.
What we have here is an announcement that looks like a plan but is no plan at all.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to commend the minister for at least moving in the right direction and suggest that one of the problems we have in housing is affordable lots. If we can free up some lots, as in the method the minister has just presented to the House today, it is one avenue that we should be approaching, but I strongly urge the minister to do more, especially in other parts of the province.
The minister stated in the last paragraph that he intends to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province and within and around Metropolitan Toronto. I realize there is a very great urgency for this part of the province, but in many of the other municipalities there are people who need affordable housing as well. I think the major problem is that lots are so expensive that only really expensive homes can be built on them. It would make more sense to have less expensive lots.
One of the problems we have is the conflict between the ministries. We have the Ministry of Agriculture and Food refusing to allow practically any land to go out of agriculture, and in many of the small municipalities in rural Ontario they need land to build on. By refusing to allow any land to go out of production, the ministry does not allow this to happen.
The Ministry of the Environment creates a problem. In a small village in my riding, the Ministry of the Environment insists that the municipality must put in a new sewage treatment plant. The Ontario Municipal Board will not allow it to go ahead and borrow the money that is necessary to put in the plant. It cannot grow without the approval of the OMB, and the Ministry of the Environment will not assist it to the degree that is necessary to achieve the results the government is looking for.
The government has a conflict within ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should all be working to resolve the issue, working together with the municipal councils to help them to plan affordable lots. If the price of land is reasonable, then the houses will be reasonable as well.
I hope the minister will give consideration to working with his caucus colleagues and his fellow ministers in designing some type of program that will help small, rural municipalities as well as downtown Metro.
Mr. Cousens: Maybe we have a new Minister of Housing. The Minister of Government Services is able to have as much influence in this government as the Minister of Housing when it comes to making announcements.
We are glad to have announcements like this for Stoney Creek and we would like to hear more announcements. If the minister wants to schedule one for tomorrow and one for the next day and to start bringing them closer to Metropolitan Toronto and to those city and urban areas where we have problems, we would be very pleased.
I know this sounds like a good project and it sounds as if there has been co-operation among the government, the municipality and the regional government. That is as it should be. But the shocking thing is --
Mr. Ballinger: Do you agree?
Mr. Cousens: Sure I agree. Let us give them a compliment when it is due. We will throw them another banana. But we need to have more happening in those areas where there is a crisis right now.
I would like to comment briefly on the point that was made by the member for Wellington (Mr. Johnson). We have several ministries that are involved in housing problems. Why is there not some consolidation of this so that we have the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) all working together so that there is a chance of something happening?
Interjection.
Mr. Cousens: Not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). If the minister gets rid of the labour strikes and labour disputes, then he will have done something.
I would like to comment briefly as well that here we are talking about further announcements throughout the province and in and around Metropolitan Toronto. I would love it if the minister could come along with some time frame within which he is going to do something where the crisis is especially bad. We are using the word “crisis” not just because it is a problem we have had for a while. When we have two units in a thousand available for people in a large urban area such as this, the problem is not getting any better. We have to have a spirit of co-operation between the government and the private sector so that there is some way in which we have a program that develops into the future. I do not see that happening.
This is an isolated example. This is not the standard. This is not something the news media should start thinking is going to be happening every day, because I doubt very much whether there will be another announcement like this tomorrow or next week or how soon it will be before the government does something more. This has to be the beginning of a significant effort, not just more window dressing, not just more words. Let us start accomplishing something to address the needs of those people who are desperate for housing. Let us start putting it together in the government first, and if there is one person who is going to head it, it should happen without delay. We can begin to see some progress.
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. B. Rae: I have a question on poverty and welfare assistance of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I do want to wait for the Premier to return, so I will stand down my first question and will ask a question of the Minister of Health.
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr. B. Rae: The minister has heard some of what I have to say before and I say to her in all sincerity I am going to keep on asking until the situation changes, because the cases just keep coming in at such a rate that we simply have to deal with this problem.
On Friday of last week, I met with a woman whose name is Ann Ricker. She is 54 years old. I visited her at her home in Welland. She is very badly crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. She has terrific difficulty in getting around her house. She is in enormous pain. She basically has had rheumatoid arthritis for nine years. She has been talking to doctors about an operation for the last four years. Now she got a letter from Dr. Cameron saying that she is, again, one of these patients who is going to have to wait. Her operation has been rescheduled from November 1988 to November 1989.
What specific steps can the minister outline which she is now prepared to take to deal with those patients who are on a waiting list for a year and a half to two years and who are in excruciating pain? I am sure the minister will appreciate that the system simply has to respond to people who are in this kind of need.
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have mentioned before in the House, waiting lists are not something new. They have developed over the past number of years. We have surveyed hospitals in this province to determine their waiting lists specifically for hip replacements. In fact, it varies across this province from two weeks following consultation to 28 months.
I am concerned about the wide variance in those waiting lists. It is the physician who determines, and his responsibility to determine, where on the waiting list the patient is placed, but it is important to note the causes of these waiting lists. We are reviewing them right now. Often it is the patient’s choice of doctor, the urgency of the case or the complexity of the surgery required.
Mr. B. Rae: The patient does not choose the specialist. The specialist is somebody a general practitioner refers the patient to. That is all very well, but first, it is not a hip replacement, it is a knee replacement, which is a somewhat rarer and trickier operation in terms of its widespread use across the province.
I would simply like to refer the minister to another problem, if she can, while she is dealing with that one. Phillip Tourangeau from Windsor has been on the urgent waiting list for a triple heart bypass since February 1988. He is 61 years old and has had two heart attacks, one in December 1986 and one in November 1987. His angiogram, which was done in February 1988, indicated the need for a bypass, but Victoria Hospital in London has been unable to schedule this surgery.
There are 100 people on the waiting list at Victoria Hospital. We have learned this morning that the hospital will be cutting back operating-room time by 25 per cent over the summer months -- which is not unusual, in the sense that it is not the only hospital to be doing this, but it is going to have an impact on that waiting list.
Again, I have a question directly to the minister. If she says the problem is planning and if she says the question is who is going to plan and who is going to be in charge, I say to her that if she wants to take the responsibility for planning, she should take it.
I would like to ask her what she is going to do as minister to reduce this unacceptable length of time for patients whose lives and whose health is being risked because of the waiting lists across the province right now.
1400
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The substantial difference in waiting lists across the province is something that concerns me greatly because I think it speaks exactly to the issue we have been discussing here, and that is planning. If we allow the hospitals to plan independently and individually, then we end up with this wide disparity of waiting lists which, in some cases, as I have said to the member, are from two weeks to 28 months. That is clearly unacceptable.
We are looking at a number of measures. We do not believe, however, that it is simply a question of throwing money at the situation. What we are looking at is central bed registries. As I have mentioned in the case of cardiac care, it has worked quite successfully in a number of other situations. We are also looking at working closely with the district health councils as we review those waiting lists and also remind the physicians and the hospitals in this province that they have a responsibility to make sure that those requiring urgent care do receive priority. That is how the system is designed, and I believe there is much we can do to make sure it operates both efficiently and effectively.
Mr. B. Rae: To those patients who are waiting in pain and listening to this question period, if there is something the minister can do, the question on their minds is why in the name of goodness she has not done it now so that people do not have to wait the way they have been waiting. If she has the answers, why does she not start to implement them so that Mrs. Ricker does not have to wait until November 1989 to be relieved of her pain?
I would like to ask by way of final supplementary to the minister, who talks about planning and how she is introducing new modes of planning, what she is going to do about the situation in Ottawa, where we have done a complete review of all the waiting lists and the occupancy lists in the hospitals and how they have changed since 1985. The number of patients who are occupying acute care beds in Ottawa hospitals who are in fact chronic care patients has grown by 27 per cent since December 1985. The average number of patients who are inappropriately placed, as the bureaucrats say, has gone up from 36 per cent to 46 per cent in 1987.
We can do a survey of community after community and we can continue to pile up the cases of patients who are waiting. What we are saying to the minister is, if she is not happy with the current administration of the hospitals, if she is not happy with the current law with respect to how hospitals plan, if she is not happy with the way in which these things are being done, if she is not happy with the way in which doctors are prioritizing patients who are sick, then it is her responsibility to do something about it; it is her responsibility to see that the waiting lists are reduced --
The Deputy Speaker: And the question is?
Mr. B. Rae: -- and that we do not continue to have patients in hospitals when they should not be there.
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very concerned that we have services available in communities and regions across this province when patients need them as close to their homes as possible. We are moving, and in fact we have taken significant steps in the past three years to address this. We have significantly increased hospital base budgets by some 39 per cent. We have added some 400 new beds, particularly chronic beds, across this province, and they are in various stages of planning as part of an $850-million capital program.
We are looking at a number of initiatives: One, we are working very closely with district health councils and hospitals on an individual basis in the short term while we get this kind of new mode of good planning and help them, rather than accusing or getting into any kind of confrontation mode with them. We are working closely with them individually. We are working with district health councils to ensure that we have the kind of good planning that will mean these problems that have existed for some period of time in the past will be corrected in the future as we lead to our goal of fairly funding our hospital system.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. As the leader stood down his first question, we shall go with the member for Sarnia.
Mr. Brandt: My question as well is for the Minister of Health. The question relates to and flows out of the series of questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae). The minister indicates that she is concerned about health care and as well that there has been an expansion of the number of beds over the last while -- I believe she used the number of 400.
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Four thousand.
Mr. Brandt: She said 400.
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Four thousand.
Mr. Brandt: There are 4,000 additional beds?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes.
Mr. Brandt: What I would like to point out to the minister with respect to the hospital bed situation and the waiting list is that tomorrow the hospitals that are in a deficit position have been asked to provide her with balanced budgets. I would like to know if the minister is aware, and I am sure she is, that some 90 hospitals are in a deficit position and it will require approximately $60 million to clear off the deficits of those particular hospitals.
In doing a survey of only eight of the hospitals, it would appear that in order for those eight hospitals to meet the minister’s requirements for a balanced budget, they will have to, not open or increase the number of beds, but close 156 beds, which will obviously aggravate the waiting list and increase the length of time patients wait for these services.
I ask the minister, is that acceptable to her?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have announced a well-planned program for ensuring we have hospitals that can balance their budgets. One year ago, the former minister gave them an across-the-board increase to bring them into a balanced situation. We asked them to submit balanced budgets this year. We have been reviewing those with chronic deficits and from the information we have, we intend to move in the future to fair funding.
What we have said is that we recognize there are some situations where the ministry has approved programs and not adequately resourced the base. We also recognize there are some situations where hospitals have acted independently, for whatever reason, and expanded programs, or started new programs or added medical staff and services without adequate resources and without ministry approval.
We are working with them on an individual basis as they present their budgets so that we can have the kind of system across this province where the Minister of Health does not simply write the cheques, but encourages the kind of good planning of our health care system that will result in better health care in this province.
Mr. Brandt: Let it be said that we on this side of the House are all in favour of good planning. We share the concerns of the minister and we want to have a well-managed health care system. But I ask the minister to be somewhat sympathetic about the fact that in many of these hospitals, we are not talking about increasing the services the hospitals are providing. We are in fact talking about an increase in demand for existing services on the part of many of those hospitals.
To give her a specific example, my own hospital, St. Joseph’s Hospital in the city of Sarnia, will have to close 40 beds for one year to meet her demands with respect to budgets simply because it has had a tremendous increase in the demand for services through that particular hospital -- no new programs, no outside embellishments to what it has offered in the past, but simply an open-ended demand on the system over which it has no control. I ask the minister, is she prepared to allow that hospital to close 40 beds because it is operating at a deficit?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said very clearly on a number of occasions in this House that we will ensure that essential services are maintained in the communities across this province. We have not cut any budget of a hospital in this province. They have all been increased and we are working with them to assist them to balance their budgets.
We recognize there are two approaches we could take. We could simply throw money at the situation or we could work closely with district health councils and hospitals to help to rationalize services in communities, to regionalize care and to make sure we are using our resources as efficiently as possible.
Where we have a situation that we have not adequately resourced, based on approval in advance and approved programs, we will make those adjustments. Where we find that hospitals have acted without ministry approval, we expect them to bring their services in line with ministry approval as we work to our goal in the future of having fairly funded hospitals.
[Applause]
Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to see the rump over there applauding this particular answer because I find it totally unacceptable. They should listen carefully to what the hospitals are going to have to do to meet the demands of their minister.
Emergency wards are being closed for the night. They are turning away ambulances when the wards are too full. They are cutting back on replacement surgery for orthopaedic patients, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out. They are cutting back on neonatal beds, less than five months after several infants in this province were flown out of the country because of lack of beds right here in Ontario.
Does the minister find this an improvement in health care in Ontario? Does she find that the services I am talking about are services she has not approved and should not be offered by the hospitals? I find her position totally unacceptable. I find that applause over there to cut these kind of services absolutely insulting.
1410
The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.
Mr. Brandt: Can I ask the minister to give us some answer as to what she is prepared to do for these hospitals?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are a number of points I would like to make, that is, if this member of the third party had managed better when his party was in government and sent a consistent message to the hospitals, we would not have that problem today.
lnterjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. No one in a life-threatening situation in this province will ever be turned away from a hospital. Essential services will be maintained in the communities. That is the commitment we have made. We are committed to well-planned and well-managed health care in this province. One thing further --
lnterjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are just wasting your own time. Is the minister finished?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes.
REPRODUCTIVE CARE
Mr. Eves: I also have a question for the Minister of Health. On September 30, 1987, her Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care submitted its second report to her. In the second week of May 1988, some eight months later, she quietly made this report available at the Ontario Government Bookstore. The minister has had the report for eight months now. What action has she taken to implement its recommendations?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have taken significant action to implement the recommendations of this report. The ratios at the present time in Ontario, if you consider all of level 3 including the modified beds, are at 1.9 per cent. The report recommended 1.75 per cent.
Mr. Eves: Let me quote to the minister from the report:
“At the present time, there are no ministry-funded positions for the training of subspecialists in obstetric or paediatric perinatology. An urgent need exists for the funding of positions for subspecialty training.”
On May 16 in this Legislature, in response to a question of mine about residencies in the province, the minister told this House that manpower planning was a priority with her. Yet she has ignored manpower planning suggested by this committee, which she commissioned, and she and her predecessor have a policy to reduce the number of residencies in the province by 200.
What is the minister going to do to ensure that there are enough specialists to meet the demands of perinatal care in this province so our patients do not have to go to Winnipeg or Buffalo in the future?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me remind the member opposite that Ontario is a world leader in both neonatology and perinatology. We have one of the best systems in the world. We are constantly trying to improve that. That is the reason we have the report which he has been referring to. We have been making progress in implementing the terms of that report.
I want to say that I am quite surprised that, in his very first opportunity to rise in the House today, the member did not clarify for the House some of the details of the inaccurate information he gave to the House last Thursday.
Mr. Eves: The Ministry of Health has funded four modified level 3 perinatal centres in northern Ontario. The minister made reference to that in response to the initial question. However, to go on and quote her own report even further: “These units will exist only on paper until properly trained professionals are in place.”
The minister must increase training programs for these subspecialists so that perinatal units in the province can function and do not just exist on paper, to quote her own recommendations. When is the minister going to follow her own advice that she gave to the House on May 16 and do something about effective health care planning with respect to these specialties and perinatal care in Ontario?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry is working very closely with the faculties of medicine to determine appropriate manpower planning strategies for across the province. As well, we have been working with the Ontario Medical Association and discussing these issues.
I am concerned that the member would rise in this House and not correct some of the false information in a question that was asked last week, as I know it is important for us to ensure that the information in question period that is asked here reflects --
Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been listening to the answers of the Minister of Health. On two occasions she has suggested that a member provided inaccurate information. She has just now said “false information.” Surely that is unparliamentary language.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I was in consultation with the Clerk.
Mr. Harris: By way of assistance and clarification, I agree with the whip from the New Democratic Party. When you get to the word “false,” I think it is indeed unparliamentary, and I am sure the advice you are getting from the Clerk, Mr. Speaker, suggests the minister withdraw.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you please explain?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes, thank you. The information that was presented to the House last week was incorrect. I brought that to the member’s attention and asked that he correct the record.
The Deputy Speaker: Case closed. New question?
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr. B. Rae: I have a question, again for the Minister of Health. The buzzword she now uses is a system that she says is well managed and well planned. She uses that phrase over and over again, and I want to bring her back home to these patients, because the patients in this province are watching this program. They watch the minister at night, and as a result of the answers she gives at night, they start to write us letters asking, “What is going on here?”
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: How can she talk about a well-planned system when the waiting lists for specific operations for knee surgery, for hip surgery, for ankle surgery, for heart surgery, are longer now than they were before; they are getting even longer, they are not getting any shorter; and some patients are having to wait for as long as two years for surgery which is essential for their health, for their wellbeing, for their ability to work and provide for their families and enjoy the good things in life?
How can the minister have the effrontery to talk about that being a well-planned system when the situation is palpably, clearly -- and we can graphically demonstrate it -- getting worse?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that in our excellent system of health care in this province there are many problems and there are many issues. The question today is how we respond to them. Do we throw money at them or do we work closely with the hospitals and the district health councils to make sure we have rationalized services in a community -- regional care, better hospital management in some cases, effective use of resources and planning techniques? I would say better manpower planning as well.
We have taken this second approach. We know that in the short term, as we work with hospitals individually, we will begin to address some of these great disparities in the length of lists. Clearly, having a two-week list at one hospital and a 28-month list at another hospital is unacceptable in our system. We are looking, through better planning, to make those kinds of changes by working with the hospitals cooperatively.
Mr. B. Rae: A heart patient does not want planning. A heart patient does not want rationalization. A heart patient wants care. Somebody wanting hip surgery does not want planning. Somebody wanting knee surgery does not want planning. What they want from the Minister of Health is the leadership that is going to allow them to get the care they need.
I would like to ask the minister what specific leadership and what specific --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. B. Rae: No, Mr. Speaker, they can try to try to shout me down; I do not mind.
What specific guarantees is the minister going to make? What specific steps is she going to take to make sure that the people I have talked about, the people who talk to me, the people who phone me at home on the weekend -- I cannot go back to them and say, “The Minister of Health says she wants to plan for you.” I want to know what they are supposed to do. What steps are they supposed to take, what steps are their physicians supposed to take to make sure they get the care they deserve in this province?
1420
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want the Leader of the Opposition to know, and I believe he does, that I care very much about being able to resolve many of these problems as quickly as we can. Where we determine that there are waiting-list problems, and we know there are, we are meeting with those people who have advice and expertise to give us on how to resolve them in the short term, medium term and longer term.
Where we identify that a computerized bed registry would assist, we are moving to implement that. Where, as in cardiac care, we determine that there is a need to enhance the system through capacity, we are working very closely with the people who are advising us on how to do that. Where we determine that it is through independent planning in the hospitals, through expansion of programs in one area and not in another that we can look at how to reallocate some of those resources so that we can have a better approach, we are attempting to do that as well.
The approach we have taken is a consultative one in working closely with individual hospitals, working with the associations and the leadership of this province to resolve many of the problems that we have. But they are not simple problems, and it will not happen overnight.
Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister of chaos.
The Deputy Speaker: Minister of what? Pardon?
Mr. Harris: The Minister of Health, I am sorry. After three years of her chaotic planning, we are now in the situation where Bill Payzant of North Bay gets a letter from the hospital notifying him that his hip replacement has been set back by an additional year. Cancelled for this July, it now goes to July 1989.
In the letter, the doctor goes on to explain that these delays are necessary for all patients. There is a very significant reduction in numbers necessary after July 1, producing long delays. However, he says neither this document nor the delays apply to patients who are from out of province or who are covered under the Workers’ Compensation Board.
I would like to know if the minister agrees with this kind of planning, as she is wont to talk about the need for planning. Is she suggesting that Mr. Payzant perhaps twin with somebody from Manitoba or Quebec who needs a replacement? The person can come to Ontario, because there is no problem there, and maybe Mr. Payzant can go to Manitoba or Quebec. Would that make a logical suggestion as to how he might get it done before he dies?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The letter that the member is referring to is one from the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, which clearly has the longest waiting list in this province, some 28 months. We are looking at the present time to see how we can best direct patients to hospitals with shorter waiting lists, because we know that they vary from some two weeks to that 28 months. We have to ask ourselves how this situation came about, and at the present time, we are looking at some of the factors that may have contributed to that very long waiting list.
Mr. Harris: I think the way it came about is fairly obvious: three years of chaotic planning by this government. That is what the problem is.
Since the minister always talks about good planning, let me give her a suggestion. I think the problem is very simple to solve. Would it not make sense for the Ministry of Health to provide the artificial joints to whatever hospital needs them? The reason the waiting list there is so long is, first, that hospital is so good, so her suggestion to go somewhere else that may not be as good really does not make much sense to me.
Second, they have been cut back because the hospital in its budget cannot afford the artificial joints. The doctor has time. The waiting room has time. The minister should not shake her head no. That is the reason. They cannot afford the $2,000 for the artificial hip.
The Deputy Speaker: Question?
Mr. Harris: Would it not make sense for the ministry to provide the artificial hips, available to all hospitals, and let them carry on and do the operations as the doctors and the hospitals have time?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that one of the difficulties is that individual hospitals maintain their own lists. While there is broad expertise across the province, there is not the kind of referral that would allow this to be done. One of the things in this particular hospital that we know is the cause of this is that an unapproved program by another hospital -- renting space in this hospital -- created at one point a surplus revenue. When that unapproved program was stopped, it was the decrease in the revenue that created the problem for this hospital.
To me, very clearly that is an issue of planning. Unless we have the kind of system where we plan, through the district health councils and through approval by the ministry, in advance of expansion of programs, we will see the longest waiting list occur where we have had poor planning.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Does the Leader of the Opposition want to ask his question now?
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. B. Rae: I met at lunchtime, as did some other members from my caucus, with a group of people who have marched all the way from Hamilton to see the Premier and to ask him to raise the rates for social assistance by some 25 percent. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why, so far, he has declined to meet these people, many of whom have walked for several days in order to come here to meet him.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is that the minister met with the group this morning.
Mr. B. Rae: That was not the question. They wanted to meet with the Premier; they did not want to meet with the minister. They wanted a chance to meet with the Premier at first hand.
Perhaps by way of supplementary I could ask the Premier this: Studies that have been done for the Thomson inquiry clearly and categorically show, on an irrefutable basis, that the level of benefits paid out to people who are either on general welfare assistance or family benefits, in real terms, has declined by as much as 30 per cent since the late 1970s, in the last 10 years.
Given that evidence, which is now before the government and before the province, I wonder if the Premier can tell us, does he not think it would be worth while for this province to raise rates by the 25 per cent being asked for by those people who have marched in from Hamilton? Does he not think that would be fair and that it would not preclude any other changes that Mr. Thomson might be recommending in the next few days?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I certainly understand the plight of a number of the people whom the honourable member is talking about, as does the minister. I am sure the minister has given him in the past and will do so again in the future the amount of increase in the social services budget over the last three years.
That being said, I am the last to argue that is enough, because there are real and legitimate cases of need, as we all recognize. That is why we asked Judge Thomson to look into the situation. We expect that report in the not-too-distant future, as he is looking fundamentally at a number of the questions the honourable member raises.
I am not in a position to respond to his request today, but we will look at the entire matter in the context of the Thomson inquiry.
Mr. B. Rae: That could take for ever. The people who met with us today said they did not want task forces and they did not want another committee; they wanted a response from the government on the substance of their claim. When it comes to choosing between meeting with the Premier and meeting with the minister, what they said is they did not want to meet the chopping block, they wanted to meet the butcher. That was the way it was put to us.
I would like to ask the Premier a simple question. The budget set down by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) calls for a further $500-million cut in government expenditures across the board and has no money specifically set aside for the Ministry of Community and Social Services in relation to an increase in social assistance. If the government is sincere about wanting to do anything about the Thomson inquiry, can the Premier tell us why no money was set aside in the budget specifically to introduce changes in our social assistance plans in this province?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: As in all matters, they ultimately end up as budgetary matters and there is some flexibility, as my honourable friend knows. We are awaiting the Thomson report, and cabinet will make a decision on how to respond to that at the appropriate time.
We expect that, and the minister could help me out, in the not-too-distant future, the fall perhaps, so it is not a question of waiting for ever. I am sure my honourable friend would want the government to make a well-thought-out response in the broad context, rather than just responding because there is a demonstration here today.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications.
There is a recent federal government report entitled Communications for the Twenty-first Century: Media and Messages in the Information Age, which estimates that the world’s stock of information is doubling every two years. Because our public libraries in Ontario play a key role in providing information to communities throughout Ontario, how is the ministry assisting the libraries in coping with this information explosion?
1430
Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Approximately three years ago, we introduced, starting in Hamilton and now ending in Guelph, a telecommunications system which is called the Ontario public libraries information network. That system is essentially an interlibrary loan information system which links up all libraries and gives a good database on existing titles. I think right now we are aiming for about 500,000 titles and have even got into lending arrangements with libraries in the United States and some libraries in Japan, as we take a look at economic management. That particular system is now set up and ready to go.
Mrs. Stoner: In addition to the information volume, we are also dealing with a very rapidly changing technology. How is the ministry going to ensure that this network keeps pace with the hardware and software?
Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I think it is normal procedure in the ministry, once it has introduced a significant system change like OPLIN, to also do some pilot work on links that need to take place. We have now provided money for an automatic technology linkage to that existing network. The purpose of that particular amount of money is to take a look at new technologies. The technologies are not only in the form of, for example, printed database; we will also be taking a look at the technologies that exist in audiovisual, cassette, large print, a whole host of things that are so important, especially in our isolated libraries right across Ontario.
TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier.
During the election campaign he clearly and forcefully promised the people of Ontario that there would be no free trade deal if it weakened the auto pact, threatened Canada’s cultural identity, removed safeguards from agriculture, permitted unrestricted foreign investment, prevented reduction of regional economic disparities and did not include a binding dispute settlement mechanism. On election night, the Premier said the citizens of Ontario had endorsed his six bottom-line conditions.
Since none of the bottom-line conditions has been met and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) now says a constitutional challenge is probably impossible, what is the Premier of Ontario going to do to prevent this sellout of Canada from taking place?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right. We put forward our position and we do not support the trade deal for those reasons and a variety of others. As the Attorney General has shared with us, he is reviewing all the options at the present time with respect to the legal powers inherent thereunder, and we will share those views with the member when the final decisions have been made.
Mr. Mackenzie: Is it not a fact that it never was the Premier’s intention to take any forceful actions
-- as New Democrats and others have suggested to him, giving some examples as well in this House -- to prevent this sellout, that he is just about ready to be back on side with the corporate
interests that want this agreement in Canada, and that in fact what he has done is lied and deceived the people of Ontario to gain election votes?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.
On July 7, 1986, referring to social assistance, the minister promised to forge a system which can face the challenge of the 1990s and beyond. He has consulted with the municipalities and workers in the process as promised, and those same partners involving municipalities are anxiously awaiting the results of this long process that started as long ago as 18 months. In fact, the clients of that process, those involved in the march against poverty, including the London Union of Unemployed Workers, are in front of us today at Queen’s Park.
The statement was made in July 1986. The report was originally due in 1987, then later in 1987, and now it is delayed until the fall of 1988. Many of us are trying to be professional about this. Does it really take four months for a written report to be put in a format that the public, the professionals and the people in need can understand and that the minister can work with?
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be well aware of the fact that the anticipated time to complete this review and the report has been expanded considerably, primarily because of the reaction to the opportunity to have some input into the whole program. The member might be aware of the fact that 1,500 briefs were received by the committee, where in the initial stages the committee itself indicated it expected maybe 300 or 400. Therefore, there has been good reason for the length of time.
As a matter of fact, where one day had been set aside for public input in a number of the major urban areas across the province, the committee was asked to come back for three, four and in some cases five days in order to allow the local groups the opportunity to make their input. Given the scope of it, that was accepted and it has taken longer.
The report is now completely written by the committee and by Judge Thomson with the exception of the executive summary. My understanding is the report runs to something like about 600 to 700 pages. Because it was written by a number of groups, it needs to be edited so the language flows rather easily. It is designed primarily for public consumption, not for professional consumption. It has to be edited. It has to be translated. We made a commitment in this government to translate those kinds of reports. It has to be printed and bound. I have indicated very clearly that the moment the report is delivered to me personally, I will make it a public document.
The information available to me at the present time is that it will be available either in late August or in early September. I will release it as soon as I get it, but I have not imposed any time restraint on the committee itself in order to make its determinations and deliver the report.
Mrs. Cunningham: I really think a time frame should have been imposed and I think four months is too long. The minister stated that this report is not for the professionals, but for the public. I would suggest they have to work together to make things happen. The London city council is on record, very recently, as demanding that the minister complete the report immediately. There are a lot of people waiting. Professionals in the field know what can be done immediately and we know what that framework is. Not much seems to be happening with regard to workplace day care and sometimes transportation needs.
My question to the minister is, after waiting for two years, are we going to receive a report that will contain dreams and promises or will it contain solid recommendations that he is prepared, at that point, to implement immediately?
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member, with her reference to day care, that when we formed the current government the total budget for day care in Ontario was in the neighbourhood of $88 million. This year it will be $288 million.
I also point out to the honourable member that when we asked Judge Thomson and his committee to accept the responsibility to do this review, we asked that he come up with a report and recommendations that were doable, that could be implemented. I do not know what the content of the report is. I have deliberately asked not to be advised until I can make it public.
However, I understand Judge Thomson and the committee will come in with a report that has three different time frames: one where recommendations can be implemented almost immediately; those that --
Mr. B. Rae: Either you’ve seen the report or you haven’t. Come on, you can’t do --
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have not seen the report.
Mr. B. Rae: How do you know what’s in the report? You either know what’s in it or you don’t. Don’t talk about the time frames as if you don’t know.
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have not seen the report.
The report will also contain some changes that will require federal-provincial agreement. That will take a little longer.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are just wasting your own time.
1440
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.
In my area, I have received quite a large number of complaints from people who are residing in retirement communities. They tell me they are being charged maintenance and operating expenses that are accelerating greatly. They tell me the owner of the retirement community can set almost whatever he wants for expenses. They tell me they have asked for verification of how these amounts are arrived at and get no satisfactory answers. Some of these people are telling me that this year alone they have faced 40 per cent increases in their operating expenses, for which they have no explanation.
My question to the minister is, is there any way to control the problems these people are facing in these retirement communities across the province, and in my own riding, under the current system of rent review?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: For anyone in this situation, there is protection provided through the rent review process. Any rent increases that are above the guideline, which is 4.7 per cent, are in fact subject to rent review. Under those circumstances, the landlord would be required to reveal the sources of his figures, including the sources of the operating costs the member is describing today.
I understand that the members of the community he is talking about have already talked with rent review officers about this. If there are any increases above the 4.7 per cent, then the landlord will be required to reveal the sources of those operating costs in order for a determination to be made.
Mr. Owen: Will there be any way in which the answers the landlord is supposedly giving can be audited? The people tell me they have had situations where directors’ fees have been charged at $100,000 or charges have been made for gasoline for vehicles that would mean the vehicles would have had to be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Is there any way in which the owners of these places could be forced to give the figures and have them audited so the people in these communities can be properly satisfied?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: The arrangements about disclosure are actually supposed to be part of the contract in the lease between the landlord and the community if the number that results is under the guideline of 4.7 per cent. If it is over that guideline, then indeed the rent review legislation does require the landlords to demonstrate, and we have the access and ability to audit the numbers they give us about increases that are above that.
HOUSING SUPPLY
Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.
Barbara Van Gorder is a single-parent mother with one child. She is now living in an apartment in North York. She has lived at the same address for 10 years. What advice would the minister give to her? She faces a rent increase at that apartment of 48 per cent over the next two years. She is on a list that has grown from 21,000 families waiting for assisted housing to now over 33,000 families waiting for assisted housing. She lives in a municipality where the vacancy rate is 0.2 per cent.
What is the minister’s advice to her? The advice she gets from those who are in charge of assisted housing is that she merely faces financial hardship, that she is not homeless and is not a victim of violent abuse. What is the minister’s advice for her?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is because of the kind of story the member tells, the fact that there are many people in this city and this province who are facing the kind of difficulty he describes of not being able to afford the housing in which they live, that our government has made the commitment to make sure that there is going to be much more housing for people to choose from, a greater variety of housing and more housing choices for the people of this province. That is the reason we have $2 billion to be put into the nonprofit program, to make sure there is housing for families, for elderly people and for single people all over the province.
I understand that is not the fastest comfort to someone facing this situation right now. But it is because of my awareness of the problem the member describes that we have made the commitment we have made and are putting the resources we are putting into this process. We are working with municipalities to increase the options for people all over the province to make sure there are more choices for people all over the province who face difficulties in affording the housing they are in.
Mr. Breaugh: I do not think Barbara is going to appreciate the answer as being much comfort to her. How does the minister explain, then, that in the three years her party has formed the government in Ontario, the waiting lists for assisted housing have gone from 21,858 families to 33,588 families? Even the vacancy rate in Toronto has gone from 0.6 per cent, which is not very good, to 0.2 per cent, which is even worse.
How does the minister explain that to her and how does the minister abide by a system of allocating assisted housing which says to this woman and her daughter that because they face only financial hardship -- they are not on the street and she has not been beaten up lately -- she does not qualify for some kind of assistance? How does the minister explain that to her?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: One of the things this government did that I am extremely proud of is increase eligibility for assistance with housing to single people as well as to families.
I think it is extremely important that people have access to housing but I am not going to pretend that all the housing we need in order to help people is already here. What we are doing is more than any government in this province has ever done. We are working enormously hard with all our resources of money, of time, of land and of co-operation with the various levels of government that are going to make this happen.
I understand that there are people who face severe hardship. It is because of my understanding of those people and what it must be like to face that hardship that I am working as hard as I am and that this government is so committed to making sure that people have places to live that they can afford to live in.
REAL ESTATE CLOSINGS
Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Housing sure has not solved the problem of the lady who asked the question.
I have a question of the Attorney General.
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: That was no lady. That was me. I ain’t no lady. I ain’t even no gentleman.
Mr. Cousens: I stand corrected.
My question is to the Attorney General. The Metro Toronto sheriff is just having an impossible time keeping up with the deluge that is coming especially at this time, one of the busiest times of the year, for house closings. Last week, because of the cutbacks in his budget, it would appear he was not able to bring in overtime staff to assist him with the deluge that comes in at this time of the year. He put a sign up in his office saying, “The Toronto sheriff will not guarantee same-day service any more.”
Now, at the busiest time, there is no doubt that today and tomorrow lawyers will be lining up. They will be trying to get searches done. They will be trying to get everything in place for those who are closing deals. I would hate to see people lose their deals because of the problems that are being brought on by the Attorney General’s budget cuts that are coming down through the system. Has the Attorney General added any overtime staff so there will be same-day services for the people who are looking for them?
Hon. Mr. Scott: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) is responsible for the registry office and the land titles office in our system, but assuming the member is referring to the possibility that the sheriff may be asked to search executions before a deal can close, the reality is that we are providing that service.
Executions can be searched, as the honourable member being a member of the cloth would not of course know, and are often conducted some weeks before the actual closing takes place, and then simply updated. I believe those updates can occur in a reasonably prompt way. It is true, of course, that the end of the month is the favourite time for the closing of transactions. I must frankly tell the honourable member that we will not be able to staff our office on a monthly basis simply to meet a peak demand that occurs one day a month.
Mr. Cousens: No. I appreciate the spirit of the answer. One of the problems we have is to get answers to very difficult and detailed problems. There would be nothing worse than for someone who has a house purchase to close on June 1, and because of delays in the sheriff’s office, not to be able to get the deal closed in time. Now all they are allowed to have is one day in which to complete that transaction.
The Ontario Law Reform Commission has recommended that the writ-of-execution period be extended to 10 days. The Attorney General we have here now brought in a bill last April -- it has been on the records of the House for over a year -- that would extend it to 10 days. It is now Bill 6 in Orders and Notices in this House.
1450
On the one hand, the government is squeezing the sheriffs’ offices so they are not allowed to bring in the staff they need to handle the large number of transactions, and on the other hand, the Attorney General has legislation that he could be bringing to this House to solve the problem, giving a 10-day period in which these executions could be done. Does the Attorney General have any plans to help solve this problem?
Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member’s question, which comes from a close reading of the Toronto Star, reveals that he has not read the entire article. What we are doing in responding to peak periods, to which I referred the honourable member, particularly at the month-end, is using overtime, but in a period of constraint, overtime cannot be a regular feature of our administration.
Mr. Breaugh: Period of what?
Mr. B. Rae: Restraint? What restraint?
Hon. Mr. Scott: Certainly in the Ministry of the Attorney General we are exhibiting constraint every day. I recommend it. I recommend constraint – restraint -- restraint or constraint to the research budget of the New Democratic Party. I want to encourage the honourable member who asked the question, who exercises restraint and constraint by not relying on his research budget and reading the newspapers. That is what all this is about.
I want the honourable member to know that I understand his point. The sheriff’s office is trying to respond at these peak periods that occur once a month by using staff on an overtime basis. I will keep it closely monitored and will advise the honourable member from time to time.
RENT REGULATION
Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. The tenants at 55 Woolley Street, Cambridge, had a rent review decision handed down on January 14, 1988. The decision did not state a deadline as to when the tenants must be given their rebates. A deadline is only an option given to rent review administrators under section 3.18 of the Rent Review Operating Guide. The landlord has refused to pay the tenants the rebate money for more than four months, and the tenants are left with lengthy court proceedings as their only means of collecting their rebates.
What action will the minister take to help the tenants at 55 Woolley Street to ensure that these tenant families quickly receive their rent rebates?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: I do not have the information on that specific case, but of course I will be very glad to work with them to make sure that they get their rebates as quickly as possible.
Mr. Farnan: Will the Minister of Housing give this House a firm pledge that she will change section 3.18 of the Rent Review Operating Guide, which deals with the enforcement of ministry orders, so that all rent rebate orders must set a specific time frame in which landlords must either pay the rebate to the tenants or the tenants can deduct the rebated amount from the current rent paid?
Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am prepared to look at it and I take it seriously.
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr. Harris: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Health one more time, since she is responsible for planning and responsible for approving the way hospitals fund their money, if she thinks it is fair that the only reason a man living in North Bay, Ontario, the richest province in Canada, cannot get his hip replaced this year is because he indeed lives and has paid his taxes for 65 years in Ontario. Does the minister think it is fair that somebody from any one of the other nine provinces, which most would argue are not as rich as Ontario, can come in to the best orthopaedic hospital, the best orthopaedic surgeon in Canada, and get an operation without waiting, whereas if you live in Ontario you have to wait? Is that fair?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important to note that just a few blocks away from the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, in a very fine hospital with very fine surgeons, the waiting period is some two weeks following a consultation.
It seems to me that when we know waiting lists are not something new in Ontario, nor are they new in Canada, nor worldwide, we have a situation here where we have a waiting list that goes from two weeks on one hand to 28 months on the other. We have very fine surgeons right across this province. What we are attempting to do, as we address this in the short term, is to make sure that we do not have the independent ad hockery which the member’s previous government was noted for, so that we can solve this problem once and for all by working with the hospitals and planning appropriately.
Mr. Harris: I do not understand how her planning solves things when each month she plans, the problem gets worse. It has done that for over 36 months now. Obviously, there is something wrong with the planning. I would ask her again if she thinks, as she approves the plans of the hospitals, that it is fair that a hospital will do hip replacements for people outside of province and yet the only reason a patient like Bill Payzant is being rejected is because he lives in Ontario. Why is it that nine other provinces can afford to pay for the hip replacements at a hospital here in Ontario when Ontario cannot afford it?
Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This really does relate to the question that was asked last week about a patient in Ontario, where the procedure was not available in Ontario and she was directed and the Ontario health insurance plan paid to make sure she received that treatment outside Ontario.
We have many patients who come to Ontario for numerous treatments. We are part of not only an interprovincial but an international network. I am very proud of the fact that people come here for needed care when those services are not available in their own jurisdictions. That is part of how this works.
What we are attempting to do is make sure that we have services available for the residents of Ontario as close to home as possible and on a planned and well-managed basis so that they do not have waiting lists which are in some cases two weeks and in other cases 28 months. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We are moving to correct the bad planning of the past to make sure that in the future we manage our resources efficiently and effectively.
TABLING OF INFORMATION
Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask you to look at the Orders and Notices of this assembly. Four questions were placed by me to the Ministry of Housing on February 9, 1988. That is 108 days ago. We still do not have an answer from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). We do not get answers in the House in question period, and we have no answer to those questions.
Mr. Wildman: What is the rule?
Mr. Cousens: It is 14 days. I just ask the honourable Speaker, who has done an excellent job today, to somehow get the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) to come through and answer those questions.
HOSPITAL SERVICES
Mr. Eves: I would like to rise to correct the record of a statement I made in the Legislature last Thursday, whereby I believe I said, and I do not have Hansard in front of me, that the Ministry of Health refused the $20,000 that McMaster University was seeking for some safety equipment with respect to its laser surgery. What I should have said is that the ministry, by its policy, has in effect forced the hospital to forego this safety equipment. I did subsequently learn that the hospital has not made a formal request for that $20,000 worth of equipment, although Dr. Stopps had requested the same from the medical advisory committee of the hospital, and the medical advisory committee of the hospital had indicated to him that they did not see how they could ask for $20,000 when the Ministry of Health was asking them to eliminate their deficit of $900,000 for last year.
PETITIONS
DRINKING AND DRIVING
Mr. Adams: I have a petition from a group which calls itself Peterborough Against Impaired Driving or PAID. 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 a group of citizens who are greatly concerned with the incidence of drinking and driving on provincial highways. We are working to lower this incidence.
“We urge the government of Ontario to do all it can to assist us and others like us in our important volunteer work.
“We urge that you, Your Honour, and members of the Legislature take note of the week of June 12 to 18, inclusive, which is officially designated Peterborough Against Impaired Driving Week.”
1500
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr. Wildman: I think this one is in order.
“To the honourable, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
We beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to the municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”
Mr. Black: All done.
Mr. Wildman: With respect, the government has not implemented the last part of that.
The Deputy Speaker: Just read the petition.
Mr. Wildman: This is signed by approximately 30 residents of Ontario. Also, I have similar petitions from three others stating that they are against Sunday openings and believe that the issue should be resolved by the government, not the municipalities. I have signed the petitions.
ABORTION
Mr. Jackson: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:
“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
“We ask the Legislature to consider the views of 38 students from Assumption Secondary School in Burlington, who have written letters which read in part as follows:
“‘The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Canada’s abortion law, leaving Canadian pre-born children without legal protection.
“‘However, the court also ruled that parliament does have the right to pass laws protecting the lives of unborn children;
“‘I respectfully request that you accept your responsibility and quickly enact effective laws to protect the unborn from the moment of conception;
“‘Any weak, compromising Legislature which fails to protect the unborn at all stages is unacceptable.’”
That has my signature as well, on behalf of the 38 students at Assumption school.
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr. Owen: I have a petition here addressed:
“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:”
It indicates that these people, 1,266 in all, are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario, and it is submitted under my signature.
Ms. Bryden: I have a petition with 40 signatures of residents of Toronto, many of them from my own riding. It is on the subject of Sunday shopping.
“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and
“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and
“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;
“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”
I support this resolution and have signed it myself, and I am honoured to present it to the Legislature.
TAX INCREASES
Mr. Eves: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:
“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:
“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mr. Farnan: I have a petition from Maranatha Christian Reformed Church in Cambridge. It relates to Sunday Shopping. It reads:
“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, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”
The petition is signed by 62 members of the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church. I have added my name to the petition and support it.
INTRODUCTION OF BILL
GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Farnan moved first reading of Bill 145, An Act to prohibit the Sale of Gun Replicas.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Farnan: The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the sale of replicas of guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime. This is in response to a tragic incident that occurred in the neighbouring community of Brantford last October, where a local man was shot dead by police after he pointed a replica handgun at them.
Another incident in Cambridge led me to --
The Deputy Speaker: Just a very brief statement, please, to explain.
Mr. Farnan: I think I have probably done that, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: You have. Yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Farnan: OK.
The Deputy Speaker: We have further chances to debate later on.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Fulton moved third reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.
Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not have any comments to make at this time.
Mr. McCague: When we had a discussion on this bill the other day, the minister assured this House it was not his intention to exercise the powers that are given to him under subsection 6(2) of this bill, and that is the power to prohibit the sale of farm produce on King’s highways.
I accept that the minister says it was not his intention to interfere with any of those. However, I think civil servants reading this section of the bill might well want to exercise that or might feel it in their bones to stop somebody selling in what is presently a legitimate setting as far as the grandfathering would be concerned.
1510
I would like to have the minister repeat today that it is not his intention to have either him or his staff prohibit the sale of farm produce, especially if it has been historically sold from that point along King’s highway. Maybe the minister would just give us a little further assurance today, before we proceed with this bill.
Hon. Mr. Fulton: I said to the member last week that it is not our intention. On only two or three occasions in the past three years have matters of this kind been brought to our attention, and in each case they were resolved.
The Deputy Speaker: The minister does not usually respond until the end. This is questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments on the member’s statement? Do any more members want to debate? Nobody else wants to debate. In that case, the minister’s response.
Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think I really have responded, perhaps prematurely. As I indicated, there is no intention to run these fruit stands, etc., out of business. There have been two or three occasions over the years where in the interests of public safety some negotiated settlement had to be reached. That is all we are attempting to do. We simply do not want people establishing any kind of roadside stand that would in any way impede public safety, or indeed their own safety. I again offer the member that assurance.
Motion agreed to.
House in committee of the whole.
EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.
The Deputy Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which sections?
Hon. Mr. Ward: I move that section 41 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection --
The Deputy Chairman: One moment, please. I am just asking if there are any other sections.
Hon. Mr. Ward: I am sorry. I have an amendment to subsection 41(5).
The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which sections?
Mr. Jackson: Can we have the complete amendment read for the record?
The Deputy Chairman: When we get to that part of it, we will. I am just asking if there are any other sections to be amended besides subsection 41(5)?
Mr. Jackson: I have an amendment to section 24 and also an amendment to the government amendment in section 41.
The Deputy Chairman: Then sections 24 and 41 are to be commented upon for amendment. Are there any other sections on which an honourable member would like to make a comment or ask a question or amend?
Sections 1 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 24:
The Deputy Chairman: I believe the member for Burlington South wishes to comment or has an amendment with respect to the section.
Mr. Jackson moves that the table to rule 4 of subsection 206a(7) be amended by striking out:
“483,000 or more persons -- 21”
in the 20th line and inserting in lieu thereof,
“483,000 or more, up to and including 582,999 persons -- 21
“583,000 or more persons -- 22.”
Mr. Jackson: Since the government has requested that this bill be reopened and brought back into committee of the whole House, we felt one section of this bill in particular was not given the proper hearing it deserved.
Specifically, the amendment I am tabling is building upon the amendment the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) presented in committee. It specifically addresses increasing the number of trustees who would be lost by the Metropolitan Separate School Board. As has been widely documented, the board would have lost three trustees under the government’s original bill. Because of the member for Scarborough West, the formula was adjusted in the table, which increased by one additional and meant their net loss would be two.
The purpose of this amendment would be to further narrow that loss to only one trustee, which would allow them greater equity and opportunity to arrange their boundaries in a more responsible manner. It is well documented that Metro separate trustees will be required to represent some 6,000 to 8,000 more electors than their public school counterparts.
Given the specific climate in Metro Toronto under the recently completed Bill 30 accommodation negotiations, it is apparent that a more equitable treatment could be achieved by this amendment if it were approved by all members of the House. It is a glaring inequity. It is disproportionate. Therefore, we ask that all members of the House support the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Just for my own clarification, if I might, it says 206a(7). I am looking at it and it seems that what you are changing is
in
--
Mr. Jackson: Subsection 5.
The Deputy Chairman: Subsection 6, subsection 5 or subsection 4. I am not sure just exactly -- is it at the top of page 8? Do you see my quandary?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. I believe it should be rule 4 which makes reference to “combined separate school board,” so it would be subsection 6, rule 4, the table set out there.
The Deputy Chairman: At the top of page 8 of the bill? Is that correct?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, that is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps you will just go with me carefully so that I make sure I am not doing it incorrectly. It is section 206a, subsection 6, rule 4. Is that correct?
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: It is the line -- I do not count that down to be the 20th line. I am just concerned to make sure we are speaking of the same part. It is where it indicates in the table “483,000 or more persons – 21.”
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: That is at the top of page 8 of Bill 125. That is not the 20th line down, though.
1520
Mr. Jackson: Well, whatever numbered line that is, that would be the line we would like to insert.
The Deputy Chairman: That is right. I just want to be sure.
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: I will have to speak to the table with respect to amending what you have put before me. In the meantime, we will go ahead and have any comments or questions.
You have heard from the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) who has put forward the amendment. Are there any comments or remarks with respect to that?
Hon. Mr. Ward: As I see it, the intent of the member’s amendment is to maintain the status quo with reference to the representation on the Metropolitan Separate School Board. Members should know that the intent of this legislation from the outset has been to change the method on which trustee representation is based, from one which for many years has been based on assessment or wealth to one based on population.
In his comments, the member made reference to the fact that trustees on the Metropolitan Separate School Board have to represent something in the neighbourhood of 6,000 more ratepayers than would be the case of those trustees on the Toronto Board of Education, but I think it is important that members be aware that the Metro separate board is one that is organized on an upper-tier basis, including all municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto.
By the same token, the public boards in Toronto have a two-tier system by which they too have a Metro board which represents something like 1.5 million ratepayers. So I do not think there is any validity in that argument. In fact, trustees on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board represent more ratepayers than those on MSSB.
We put in place a consistent method for establishing the number of trustees. We have put flexibility into the bill so that each board could add up to two members to its board so there would be some flexibility in terms of making determinations of representation. We believe the table we have in place is fair and equitable.
This matter was given a thorough airing at the standing committee on social development, and an amendment was put forward and accepted. Frankly, this is a rehash of the same issue that was before the committee and the government does not support this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak with respect to that amendment? If not, may I have just a few more minutes to clarify the exact line and the appropriate rule -- it will just be a moment.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee’s indulgence with respect to this. It is my understanding that Mr. Jackson has moved that the table to rule 4 of subsection 206a(6) be amended. Do I have the agreement of the House that the amendment will read subsection 206a(6)?
Agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment with respect to this particular amendment? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?
All those in favour will please say “aye.”
All those opposed will please say “nay.”
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 24 stand as part of the bill?
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 41:
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ward moves that section 41 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
“(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where a municipality within the area of jurisdiction of a board was divided into wards on February 1, 1988, the board may, by resolution made on or before August 10, 1988, establish the wards as electoral areas for the purposes of the election of members of the board in the regular elections to be held in 1988 under the Municipal Elections Act.”
Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, this comes about as a result of provisions in the Ottawa-Carleton legislation which permitted the structuring of the municipal boundaries into zones for electoral purposes. Originally, the section was not permissive, did not include the fact that a board may or may not choose to exercise this option.
I should point out to members of the opposition, particularly the critics, that when we originally provided copies of this amendment, the operative date was July 1. Members will recall that in committee we changed that to August 10. The member for Burlington South, I believe, was coming forward with an amendment to that date. I just indicate to him that, prior to arriving here today, we too made the determination that August 10 should be the operative date.
Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be supporting this amendment, but I would like to make a couple of comments about the process that has been used to arrive at Bill 125.
Members will remember that this bill was originally Bill 76, I think, which was announced before the Legislature came into session and then introduced. Trustees across the province were quite upset with the original form of the bill. There did not need to be much consultation, because we could hear trustees across the province from their boardrooms and from their committee meetings yelling and screaming at the government over the original version of that bill.
Before we got to second reading of that bill, the government decided it would withdraw the bill and reintroduce it under a new name, Bill 125. Then the bill went out to committee for public hearings, amendments were made and it was going to come back for third reading, but instead the government found a further mistake and had to bring in this amendment. Then, we understand, as the minister just said, his original proposed amendment erred in that it had July 1, 1988. Today the government brought in a different version of the amendment, August 10, 1988.
1530
I think the minister should be somewhat embarrassed at the process that has been used to arrive at this final form of the bill. It reminds me of some of the pieces of legislation we dealt with under the Ministry of Health. I said then, when we dealt with the Mental Health Act and a couple of other pieces of legislation, when the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) was the minister and we had about 10 different versions before we finally came up with the final version, and withdrawals of bills and reintroductions of bills, that heads should roll for the way that legislation had been dealt with.
I am pleased to be able to support this amendment, but I hope in the future the minister will be able to get his act together before he introduces a bill, then has to withdraw it, reintroduce it and do all the things he has done with this piece of legislation.
I gather the bill in its final form, after it is approved today, will be somewhat acceptable. Why the proper consultation, examination and drafting were not done long before this is beyond me. I hope the minister is embarrassed; he should be embarrassed.
Hon. Mr. Ward: I am always delighted to listen to the interventions of my good friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), whom I have sat with on many, many occasions in committee.
I would just say that at the time Bill 76 was introduced, we made it clear that further legislation would be necessary because it did not include provisions for Metropolitan Toronto, since that was not part and parcel of the process that was used in the joint committee recommendations that were undertaken by the various trustee associations.
He made some reference to the haste in which this matter is being dealt with. This issue was first raised in 1978 and has been the subject of many studies and many concerns expressed by those who participate at the local level in trustee and school board governance. I can only say it had been my hope and my expectation at the time Bill 76 was introduced that we could move to second reading and that we could move quickly into committee, but other pressing matters made it rather difficult for us to reach that stage within this forum. As a result, over concern at the amount of time that had elapsed, we chose to bring in an amended bill, using much of the written concerns that had been expressed by various trustees and various municipalities throughout this province.
I, for one, firmly believe in the committee system we use here. I do not think for a moment that the member for Windsor-Riverside, or the member for Burlington South, or myself or anyone else here, has a monopoly on good ideas. I think the whole purpose of having public input is always to refine and to improve a piece of legislation.
If the member expects me to be embarrassed by that, I suggest he should be embarrassed if he thinks a process of consultation is only one of giving lipservice rather than trying to improve on what we do here.
Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would point out that one of the reasons the government eventually listened to some of these amendments was that we certainly made it clear that if the bill was not more acceptable, the bill simply would not be passed in time for the municipal elections this fall.
In the original form that the bill was introduced to the Legislature, it certainly would have been totally unacceptable. We made it very clear we would not allow that bill to proceed in that form, so we forced, obviously, the minister to listen. If the Liberal government was less arrogant and listened more closely to the people it was consulting with, it would have been able to bring in a bill that was more acceptable in the first place. Thank goodness we have opposition parties, which force this government to listen.
Mr. Jackson: I can bring the discussion back to the specific amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: That is an excellent idea.
Mr. Jackson: Before I do that, I would like to comment about what the member for Windsor-Riverside said about the surprise that this section 41 amendment is still not in the same form in which we were advised on Friday it would be tabled before committee of the whole House. It seems to illustrate very clearly the government’s approach in this matter. As the member has expressed some concern about these 11th hour amendments, I can enlighten him that the minister has even approached us about further amendments with respect to French-language minority rights representation and certain personal authorities that the minister might have in order to make those decisions during this first election year.
With regard to the minister’s statement that he supports the committee system, I will be pleased then to gain his support to refer Bill 100, which I believe is slated for Wednesday, to the standing committee on social development. Since he is so supportive of the committee system, I look forward to his support in moving that bill on a somewhat related matter to the social development committee. I notice the minister is nodding approval. I appreciate his kind consideration.
To go back to the amendment, we support the amendment. Those of us who were present for the social development committee last Wednesday, heard the concerns of the Ottawa board. This amendment will provide additional flexibility regarding the distribution of trustees within that board.
The amendment to this amendment which I have served notice of has now been covered, now that I understand the minister has included the adjustment to “on or before the 10th day of August.” That was an amendment which I placed last Wednesday and it was an amendment I was prepared to table today in the House, since the minister’s original motion had indicated the first day of July.
We did this for very clear reasons. The way the government and the mandarins at the Mowat Block have configured trustee representation for this fall’s election, the enumeration process will occur rather late this year. The minister was calling upon boards, both in Bill 76 and Bill 125, to make a determination before they had those actual figures and numbers. We are pleased that support was given to my amendment, which moved that date to August 10. We are very hopeful that all school boards in Ontario will have received the results of the enumeration and therefore will be able to make initial decisions based on actual numbers as presented in the enumeration data, instead of the wild-guess system that was proposed in the government’s legislation.
We fully support the amendment and we fully support the minister’s amendment to his amendment, which we had indicated we would be calling forward today in the House.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?
All those in favour say “aye.”
All those opposed say “nay.”
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported one bill with a certain amendment.
1540
ONTARIO LOAN ACT
Mr. Polsinelli, on behalf of Hon. R. F. Nixon, moved second reading of Bill 117, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. Polsinelli: The 1988 Ontario Loan Act will provide the government with the authority to borrow up to $2.8 billion for provincial purposes. These funds will be used to meet financing requirements, including the repayment of the principal of maturing debt. Although the net cash requirements for 1988-89 are substantially lower than in previous years, borrowing requirements are higher. This is the result of increased debt retirements, a provision for Canada pension plan borrowing on behalf of Ontario Hydro and an increase in liquid reserves.
The primary source of borrowing under this act will be the teachers’ superannuation fund. Provision is also made for the government to borrow from the Canada pension plan investment fund or the public capital markets, should that be appropriate. The province is currently issuing Treasury bills and intends to continue tenders at current levels. The act provides that any unused borrowing authority will lapse on September 30, 1989.
Mr. Harris: This bill authorizes, I guess, $2.8 trillion -- is that right -- or $2.8 billion? I lose track of these numbers. Is that $2.8 billion or $2.8 trillion? How much money is that? There are so many zeros there, I cannot keep track. Whether it is $2.8 billion or $2.8 trillion, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can break down for us a little better why $2.8 billion is required this year, how much of it is refinances, if any, and how much of it is new financing and give us a little more detail as to what categories they go into.
Mr. Laughren: I thought it appropriate to ask the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) a couple of questions, as we are aiding in his apprenticeship program here this afternoon. One is to what extent the $2.8 gazillion, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) would call it, the $2.8 billion, includes the borrowing from the Canada pension plan for housing purposes? If it does include the borrowings for the housing as announced in the budget, why is that not included in the deficit for the province?
Mr. Polsinelli: I should point out to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that this does not include borrowing from the Canada pension plan for housing purposes. I believe the government has decided that the Ontario Housing Corp. would be allowed to borrow directly from the Canada pension plan funds for housing purposes. The 1988 Ontario Loan Act does not include that element of expenditure.
With respect to the member for Nipissing, I would be pleased to break down the $2.8 billion that is required, and that is a two, with an eight, two zeros and another six zeros following that. It is broken down as follows: The 1988-89 net cash requirements are $473 million, as pointed out by the Treasurer in his budget; retirements are $920 million, and members will notice that is substantially more than was retired in previous years; and the increase in liquid reserves is $282 million. That brings us to a total of $1,675,000,000.
I have zero seconds to complete the rest, and I would be pleased to do it later.
Mr. Laughren: It really is amazing that the Treasury could come forward with this $2.8-billion borrowing bill, already having announced $2 billion in borrowing from Canada pensions for housing purposes, and because it has simply moved the pea from under one shell to under another shell, the government does not have to consider it to be part of the provincial deficit. I would ask the member for Yorkview, when he responds, if he would give us in his own inimitable words just how he makes the distinction between borrowing $2 billion from Canada pensions for housing purposes, which is not considered part of the formal debt structure of the province, whereas this is. I know the member for Yorkview could say, “Well, that’s because the borrowing is going to be done directly by the Ontario Housing Corp.”
I suppose, now that I am on my feet and thinking -- I was not intending to take part in this debate this afternoon -- the member for Yorkview would argue that Ontario Hydro’s debt is not considered part of the Ontario debt, the provincial debt, either. We will see if the member for Yorkview can come up with any better rationale than I have given him to work with already.
We know this bill is primarily designed to borrow money from the Canada pension plan and the teachers’ superannuation fund, and therein lies the rub. The teachers’ superannuation fund is a huge fund. The last time we checked, it had something like $10 billion in assets, which are expected to rise to, I think, $15 billion by the end of this decade; so it is a big fund and it is growing.
The government has decided, totally separate from this bill, although it is hard to avoid commenting on it, that teachers are going to have to pay another two per cent into that fund in order to make it viable, despite the fact that it has $10 billion in assets and is growing rapidly.
All the assets of the teachers’ superannuation fund are invested in nonmarketable government of Ontario securities, as I recall. It is not because the teachers want it that way, necessarily. It is because the government has decreed that is the way it is going to be, that the teachers have no say in the way in which the funds are disposed. They have no say in negotiations on their pension plan; they have no say in the structure of the fund itself -- absolutely none. Then the government says, “Even though you don’t have any say in any aspect of it, even though it is your pension plan, even though it is your money that’s funding it, we are going to borrow from it as we see fit and you are going to invest it in our nonmarketable securities.”
It really is unfair. Admittedly, the previous government structured the teachers’ superannuation fund. Nevertheless, they did it, and this government is continuing that practice, I suppose because it sees it as irresistible to be able to borrow big bucks from the teachers’ superannuation fund.
The teachers could make a lot more money if they were not restricted by the legislation that requires them to put their money into nonmarketable government securities, and the rate of return they get is totally set by the government. It has very little to do with market conditions.
1550
Since 1980, the teachers’ superannuation fund has never had an annual rate of return in excess of 11 per cent; for the last eight years. As a matter of fact, I will give the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) the numbers. Since 1980, it has never had more than an 11 per cent return. Here is what the top pension fund in each year received. The member for Yorkview might know there is a fund measurement firm called SEI Financial Services that measures the performance of pension funds. It takes a different one each year.
Here is how the top ones rated in the last few years: in 1980, 25.3 per cent return; in 1981, 12.7 percent; in 1982, 40.3 percent; in 1983, 24 percent; in 1984, 15.9 per cent; in 1985, 29.3 per cent; and in 1986, 17.6 per cent. Those were the rates of return the top pension funds received.
While those numbers were out there floating about, all the way up to 40 per cent, the teachers’ superannuation fund never got more than 11 per cent, because the government decreed it that way. That is the top fund. To be fair, I am using the top pension fund, but even if I used the average pension funds, they had a 15 per cent return in four out of those seven years I just gave to the member. In only one year did they have a rate of return lower than that of the teachers’ superannuation fund.
Here is the government putting the teachers’ superannuation fund in a straitjacket, not allowing it to get its maximum return, doing that with one hand and with the other hand forcing the teachers to put another two per cent into the fund, presumably to make it actuarially viable.
I hope the member for Yorkview will respond, because he is borrowing money from that fund. The teachers have no choice whatsoever. I wonder if the member for Yorkview, when he responds, can tell us what he thinks is fair about telling the teachers, first, that they have no say whatsoever over their fund. They cannot even negotiate it. Second, they have no say in the structure of the way the teachers’ superannuation fund is set up. Third, they have no say in where their moneys are invested. Their moneys: They pay them in; they come off their salaries. It is already eight per cent and it is going up to 10 per cent of the teachers’ earnings, if the government gets its way.
Here the government is, putting all these restrictions on how they run their fund -- or how they do not run their fund, if you will -- and now it is saying, “We are going to borrow from you and we are going to give you a return much lower than you could get if you were out there investing in the marketplace.”
The government really is being extremely unfair to this particular fund. The government obviously sees it as a milch cow, which it is milking for its own purposes. It can argue, “Well, the funds benefit all the people of Ontario,” but why on their backs? Why at their expense? Why has it picked out the teachers’ superannuation fund and said, “That is the one we are going to take and we are going to borrow from”?
It is listed very specifically in the bill. It is not as though it is just one of a number of pension plans. “The purpose of this bill is to provide authority for borrowing moneys from the consolidated revenue fund. The principal borrowings authorized under the Ontario Loan Act in recent years have been from the following sources:
“1. Canada pension plan
“2. Teachers’ superannuation fund
“3. The public capital market.”
We all understand the first one, the Canada pension plan. That was the agreement between the provinces and the federal government. Those funds would be made available in proportion to the amount that was raised in each of the provinces.
With respect to the public capital market, everybody understands that you can borrow money on the public capital market.
The only pension plan other than the Canada pension plan is the teachers’ superannuation fund. It is the only one that is specifically delineated in the bill. I hope the member for Yorkview will think about that when he responds, because that is a very unusual thing for the government to be doing.
I know the government likes the teachers’ superannuation fund. It is one of the major sources of borrowing. It allows the government not to have to borrow on the public market, where it would have to pay more. I understand why the government borrows from the teacher’s superannuation fund. It is cheap.
Mr. Reycraft: Not so.
Mr. Laughren: I am telling the member, it is cheap. And that would be fine. You could say, “That’s prudent government, borrowing money at the lowest possible rate.” But I ask the government how it is that it picked out that one particular fund and said, “This is the one we are going to borrow from.” That is exactly what it has done.
Hon. Mr. Conway: Somebody’s got to look after the Legislative Assembly retirement allowances plan.
Mr. Laughren: Yes, that is right, the LARAP. I will not be deterred by interjections from the government House leader.
I am just saying to the member for Yorkview that when he responds, I very much hope he will tell us how he thinks it is fair that this particular fund has been isolated from all other funds for the purpose of government borrowing, and why he thinks it is fair that this fund is restricted from earning a return that other funds have a right to earn out there in the marketplace, and at the same time tells them they now have to pay an extra two per cent of their earnings into the fund in order to make it viable.
If that fund had been receiving market returns for the last 10 years, who knows? Perhaps there would be no requirement whatsoever for the extra two percent. I do not know that. I am not an actuary, but I hope the member for Yorkview will take my remarks into consideration when he responds.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr. Polsinelli: I have questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary assistant usually responds at the end, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Polsinelli: But I can participate in the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: OK. Fair enough.
Mr. Polsinelli: I figure that rather than saving everything until the end, we have some very intelligent people from the Treasury here, and they sent me a little note: “Government established the Rowan task force,” with which the member for Nickel Belt is fairly familiar, “to examine particularly that question. The Rowan recommended that market investments, as the question suggests, would be appropriate. The government has asked David Slater to consult with teachers and affected groups. Teachers’ superannuation fund money means it costs about 11.3 per cent, as compared to 10.1 per cent for Canada pension plan.”
The bottom line is that rather than borrowing it from the teachers’ superannuation fund, we could get it from a cheaper source. So why are we getting it from them in the first place? I do not know. Those are questions we are going to be looking at and we are going to be asking.
In terms of the comments the member made with respect to why CPP borrowing for housing purposes is not a part of the provincial deficit or the provincial debt, he gave the answer himself and I am satisfied with it.
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As one who for a number of years was enrolled in that teachers’ fund, I have a slight nodding acquaintance of it. I would like to draw to the honourable member’s attention that there are two very distinct funds. There is a basic six per cent paid by teachers for the regular fund, but there is an additional one per cent on top of that for the indexed portion. It is the indexed portion that is in actuarial difficulty; it is not the basic six per cent.
If they are talking of that two per cent, it is to cover the indexing, not the basic six per cent. As a matter of fact, at the present time, going ahead as all of these funds actuarially must do to the year 2030, I believe it is, the fund would be $5 billion in deficit under the existing program. The decision was made a number of years ago to fund only the indexing at one per cent. It is now proved that is not sufficient and that is going to have to change.
Mr. Laughren: Why not let it get a market return?
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The second point I would make to the member is along that line, that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is clearly looking at the option of borrowing from other places, because in fact in the last couple of years and several times during the past decade, there were times he could have borrowed outside at a lower rate of interest. He can do that right now.
1600
The difficulty, however, that the Treasurer has to be aware of is that the government of Ontario, indirectly the Treasurer, is responsible for the payout of these funds. So while the original plan was designed that the government would match teachers dollar for dollar in terms of input -- that is the way it is designed -- in fact, as it goes ahead for the next 10 to 15 years, the government of Ontario, and therefore the taxpayers of Ontario, are going to have to pay a higher percentage than the teachers will if we are going to maintain that plan. Therefore, if you are looking at those additional percentages, you are going to have to look, clearly, at the indexing portions, not the basic six per cent.
Mr. Harris: I was not going to say anything, but some of the comments have prompted me to refocus my look at the comments the member made, specifically on the teachers’ superannuation fund.
The one per cent contribution, as the Minister of Community and Social Services has pointed out, has not been enough to cover the inflation indexing, and the reason for that is really what has to be looked at. The pension plans, if the money is left in the fund and if it adapts to the market, can adapt to high rates of inflation by getting a higher rate of return on the money. The teachers’ superannuation fund, on the other hand, cannot because the government locks it in at whatever the government borrowing rate is. That is one of the primary reasons.
I think the member for Nickel Belt was trying to point out that this is one of the problems the fund has, that the government, first, will not allow any other input into how those funds are used and it does not get a market return on the money, and pension --
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This didn’t happen in three years, though.
Mr. Harris: No, it did not happen in just three years. I was a teacher as well, and listen, everybody says to me that I have to be responsible for Leslie Frost. Damn it all, I came here to effect some change, and if Leslie Frost set it up and it is wrong today, it is wrong. That is no reason for those guys to sit over there and argue, ‘We are going to carry on doing it wrong.”
It is particularly wrong today, and it is even worse when we see this government keying in on all the borrowing being from the teachers’ superannuation fund. They are not going to touch Canada pension plan, which I think they should be doing something about changing but which is a more difficult process.
The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.
Mr. Harris: This is one they are in fact responsible for.
Mr. Laughren: I will respond very briefly and quickly to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who talks about the need for the government being responsible, ultimately, for the teachers’ superannuation fund. I ask him if he is aware that over the years the government, which has an obligation to match the contributions of the teachers, has never matched that contribution?
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: They are responsible for the payout.
Mr. Laughren: They are responsible for it, but they have never matched the payments the teachers have put in. All it is is a bookkeeping entry, but they deem to have matched the contributions. Do they really think there would be any problem at all, actuarially, with any part of the fund that the teachers have put actual dollars into their half? There would not even be the slightest problem. They would be awash in money and that money could be used for good social purposes out there as well.
I think the minister is off base when he makes that argument. The government may be responsible for the payout if anything was to go wrong, for example, but at the same time, it is responsible for matching the contributions the teachers have made and it has never matched those contributions. The teachers have funded their own plan, despite the fact that one half of it is supposed to be funded by the Ontario government. The Ontario government has never done that.
It has been the subject of much anger and frustration within the teaching profession, and yet to this day that is the way it is still funded. Is it any surprise that there needs to be an injection of money if one of the partners in it is not paying its share? I am surprised they have got this far without running into a problem.
The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?
Ms. Bryden: I am very sorry to see that there has been really no change in government policy since the new government came in, regarding the use of the teachers’ superannuation fund in debt management and regarding the fund itself and the terms of it.
I think this gives us an opportunity to ask the Treasurer to look at the whole teachers’ superannuation plan as part of the authorization he is asking us to give him, to use that money, because I am sure the Treasurer and every other member in this House has received briefs from the teachers and from the superannuated teachers regarding what they consider the lack of democracy in the plan, the lack of opportunity for the participants to have any say in the terms of the pensions that are given to them or in the reform of any of the terms and regarding how the money is invested.
I think many of the teachers feel that if the money was invested in a more diversified way, there would be greater earnings from it, and then the teachers could point to those earnings as a reason for reforming the plan. The teachers have certainly indicated over the years that it has been needing reform. I have met with superannuated teachers who tell me that people who retired at different dates are getting different treatment under the plan as far as their pensions go. They are simply asking that the treatment be equalized.
I do not know whether the Treasurer has even looked at that problem, but I think we should not vote this authorization for him to use the fund until he or his parliamentary assistant is willing to make a commitment to review the whole teachers’ superannuation plan and the way it is administered. I think the minimum part of the commitment should be that teachers themselves and superannuated teachers should be part of the body that decides how the funds are invested.
Second, I think that teachers should have a say in the kind of plan that is in the legislation. It is a fixed purchase plan, so the terms are set by legislation rather than being based on the earnings of the fund. The point is, if the earnings of the fund go up, then it would appear that there is an opportunity for the government to improve the terms of the pension plan and still have money to pay for it, without raising the rates that the teachers are paying and that the government is presumably paying. As my colleague the member for Nickel Belt says, the government has not always paid its matching share, or gets way behind in paying its matching share. If the money had been available for investment, the matching share could have brought in more money if it had been invested outside the government.
I think the member for Nickel Belt is quite right. Both the previous government and the present government consider it nothing more than a cheap borrowing source. They really are not concerned about the teachers who teach throughout the province having better pensions or at least reviewing their pensions to see when they should be raised, by how much and what the terms should be.
Certainly, it took a long time to convince the previous government that they should be indexed. They did bring in the beginning of indexation, but of course they should be fully indexed, as should all pensions. That would give governments an incentive to try to keep the cost of living down and to try to keep inflation rates down. As long as it does not keep inflation rates down, people should not be having to reduce their standard of living when they retire because their pensions buy less and less goods and services.
I really urge the parliamentary assistant, and I hope the Treasurer, to make a commitment that if he is going to be authorized to use this fund for borrowing, by next year he will let us see that he has looked at the plan, studied the briefs that have come in from the teachers and the superannuated teachers and tell us which of the changes they are asking for he is prepared to implement.
Otherwise, I think the teachers are going to conclude that the change of government has meant absolutely nothing to them and that they are very disappointed that they, or that the electorate, did effect a change of government, and produced no improvements for superannuated teachers.
1610
Mr. Harris: I would like to say we are opposed to this bill. We do not think this administration has demonstrated anywhere close to the type of control on spending, to the management of our resources, that is required to bring the borrowing into anything that is close to what this province should be borrowing as the richest province in Canada.
I want to begin by reading a few excerpts from a May 2, 1984, communique by David Peterson, then leader of the official opposition:
“I am today making public an Ontario Liberal research document which reviews for the first time the extent and implications of the Ontario government’s borrowing from pension funds.
“This study vividly confirms that we face a crisis of immense proportions, which if left unattended will create severe strains on our provision of pensions and services in the decades ahead.”
That is what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) thinks of this bill. That is what the Premier thinks of what this Treasurer is doing obviously.
“Despite claims to the contrary” by the then Premier and then Treasurer, “the problem confronting us is real. If I might borrow an analogy from the report, ‘The government has been borrowing and spending the money the pension funds have been saving, not unlike a parent borrowing from his child’s piggy bank. The child can really only collect if the parent is willing and able to repay.’”
“At this point in time” -- at that time – “there is scant evidence that the Ontario government intends to repay the $25 billion it has borrowed from the pension funds, or if it is committed to the repayment or how that will be accomplished. This commitment is vital and urgent for two very important reasons.
“By its nature, the crisis is one that looms, but one that will not be felt until it descends upon us. It will not descend upon us until the wave of what has become known as the ‘baby boom’ approaches retirement. By then it will be too late to act.
“Second, the irresponsible borrowing practices of the current administration threaten our ability to provide fundamental social services to the people of Ontario in coming years.”
I am opposed to this bill for what the then Leader of the Opposition said were irresponsible borrowing practices. He said:
“This is not just an economic issue. It is a social issue, one which could carry profound consequences for the human relationship between children, parents and grandparents in the decades ahead. We have allowed this government to mortgage the future to such an extent that our capacity to continue providing universal access to high quality health care and education is in peril.” In the last couple of years, we have started to see that come to fruition already.
“This at a time when our ageing population will place greater demands on the health care system and our young people will need first-class training to compete in a highly technological world. We must recognize this crisis of the future and we must prevent it from happening.”
“David Peterson, May 2, 1984.”
That is the press release that accompanied this research document done by the Liberal Party of Ontario in May 1984.
I want to take a couple of sections of that report and read them into the record as well.
“An open-market investor can sell his bonds. The teachers cannot sell theirs. An open-market investor can wait for his bonds to mature, then refuse to reinvest in a new issue. The civil servants have no assurance that they will be allowed to do this. Their funds are managed by the person they are lending to, the Treasurer of Ontario.” So the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), would be opposed to this bill. “Ultimately, it comes down to how good or bad are Ontario’s borrowing practices and whether the funds invested in the government of Ontario will ever be allowed out of the Treasurer’s coffers.”
The member for London Centre’s research document states here some of the unwanted consequences of what he is perpetrating upon the Legislature today.
“If the province continues its current policies, it will produce a disaster of one form or another. As old debts mature and five per cent coupons are replaced with 12 per cent coupons, rolling old bonds increases overall interest costs. Adding the cost of new debts raises this cost again.
“This must impact the provincial budget in one of three ways because interest costs will rise as a percentage of the budget. Either other government services will suffer as funds are siphoned off to service debt or taxes will have to rise in order to maintain service levels in the face of higher debt service costs, or some combination of these two.”
I think those of us in Ontario today will recognize that free spending practices cause those same things: a cut in services and an increase in taxes. We are seeing that today in the health care system. We are seeing it today in the education system. We are seeing it in the university system where, for the first time in the history of this province, 10 per cent of students will not be able to attend either a community college or a university they are qualified to attend come this September. None the less, this is talking about the future and what happens when one borrows from the teachers’ superannuation fund and from the Canada pension plan.
“The magnitude of this impact is potentially breathtaking.” In 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition said this bill was breathtaking. “If past management is continued in the future, then the proportion of budget expenditures required for debt service could double by fiscal 1996-97 and triple by fiscal 2011-12. This would mandate a reduction in all other services, including health, by almost one third.”
That is the research document the then Leader of the Opposition commissioned. That is the press release he presented in 1984. What has happened since 1984? He formed a government in 1985. The total debt has increased by $8.7 billion. He was concerned then, in 1984.
We have been, admittedly, according to the Treasurer and the Premier, in boom economic times. During a time when we go through a recession, most people understand that governments intercede and have to spend a little more. It works, providing that in boom times one puts it back. We have been in boom times now: 1985, 1986, and 1987. What has happened? The total debt has increased by $8.7 billion. It is a disgrace by any measure and it is a disgrace by the measure the then Leader of the Opposition put forward in 1984.
The total debt has increased by 29 per cent since 1984-85. The per capita share of debt has increased by 22 per cent during that same period. We are in boom times, the money is rolling in, and the debt is up by $8.7 billion, close to 30 per cent, and the per capita share of debt has increased by 22 per cent.
I want to talk briefly and lend my comments about the teachers’ superannuation fund, which I think is something that should be looked at. I want to go on the record as well, as I did teach school for a couple of years and participated in this fund for a couple of years, to indicate that I have no conflict. The first thing I wanted to do was get my money out of that fund. I do not care whether it is a Conservative government, a New Democratic government or a Liberal government.
Hon. Mr. Ward: Sure you do.
Mr. Harris: No, I do not.
1620
When I was a teacher and dealing with the superannuation funds, the last thing I wanted was for the government to have its mitts on my money, at three, five and now eight and nine per cent. That is the last thing I wanted.
I also want to put on the record that one of the problems is the teachers themselves. The New Democrats did not say this in their comments, but they are a problem, the federations, the unions. The union I belonged to was the Ontario Public School Men’s Teachers’ Federation. I am proud to be on their pamphlets come election time as a former member. I am actually proud of a lot of the good work my former union performed and of a lot of the good work they continue to perform.
But I was not proud of the federations when it came to pension plans. I was not proud of them because, when I brought it up as a teacher -- I brought it up again as a trustee, but particularly when I brought it up as a teacher -- I was always told by the federations: “No. No. No. We do not want to interfere with that. We have a cosy arrangement with the government. They are going to guarantee our pension whether there is any money in it or not.”
That cosy relationship, unfortunately, in my view, has led the government into improper planning and improper investment of the funds, which is going on today. In my view, it is not in the best interest of the teachers and is not in the best interest, particularly, of this government. That is why I am bringing it up in this forum today. I do not think the guarantees that are there, that when one reaches the 90 factor, 70 per cent of the average of one’s best five years -- If we take a look at the amount of money that goes into the pension plan and if we take a look at what good pension plan fund managers are able to achieve, in my view, the teachers are being ripped off, and the unions have to bear some of the responsibility because, certainly when I was involved, they kept agreeing to it
At this particular time, as we oppose this piece of legislation -- but we understand it is going to go ahead -- I think it is important to place on the record that the whole teachers’ superannuation fund should be looked at.
I want to talk about the Canada pension plan as well. I know there are rules that have been worked out with the federal and the provincial governments. I understand that whatever money is generated under the Canada pension plan in a province is available then to the Treasurer of that province to borrow from, and at a very favourable rate, a rate less than the market rate. There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong with the government borrowing from any pension plan, whether it is the Canada pension plan --
Mr. Mahoney: The Conservatives did not do it?
Mr. Harris: Yes, we did. There is something wrong with that. Perhaps the member missed the opening part of my comments. There is something wrong with that system, and it is something I believe this government should be speaking out on. Why have provincial premiers and provincial treasurers not spoken out on it in the past? Why do they refuse to do so today? Because it is a ready source of cheap money for them.
Whenever we have a pension plan -- when we have the Canada pension plan -- whereby that money is not getting a fair market return, the taxpayers or pension plan contributors collectively, are being ripped off. Every member here pays into the Canada pension plan. That was not always the case, by the way. That was something that just came in around 1979, 1980 or 1981, around when I was elected. But every worker, basically, pays into the Canada pension plan in Ontario, including self-employed people. They are all being ripped off because we are not getting the market value for those funds.
The government can say: “Maybe it is an unfunded liability. Maybe it is this and maybe it is not. We are guaranteeing a certain rate of return.” All I can say is, if those funds gathered the market rate of return, there would be more money available for pensions.
There is something wrong when the government says: “This plan is compulsory. You must contribute to it whether you want to or not and you must take the meagre rate of return we are going to give you, because we are the ones who are going to borrow the money.” Does that not fundamentally bother members? It has always fundamentally bothered me. I am putting it on the record again today and suggesting that perhaps this government, this Treasurer, this Premier or somebody, sooner or later, has to have enough gumption to say we should be looking at this.
I am concerned as well about the $2-billion housing proposal. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant is paying attention. One of the things that will help me vote on this faster is if he can answer these questions in his summation of the second reading debate.
I do not understand, and perhaps he can explain it to me when he sums up this debate, how come we need a bill for the Treasurer to borrow money from the Canada pension plan and we need a bill for Ontario Hydro to borrow money, but we do not need one for the Ontario Housing Corp. All the Treasurer has to do is say, “Go ahead and do it.” I do not understand that. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can explain to me how the Treasurer, just like that, can say, “The Ontario Housing Corp. can go ahead and borrow this money any time it wants and at the same rate that we borrow it,” yet we need a bill in this House for the Treasurer himself or for Ontario Hydro to borrow the money. I do not understand the logic behind that. I would be interested in what the parliamentary assistant has to say in response to that.
Since the parliamentary assistant says there is no bill required and since we are into a government borrowing bill, perhaps it is a good time for me to ask something about the whole $2-billion borrowing as well. I object to pension plan funds being used for any purpose that does not bring a market return. That is ripping off the people who contribute to the pension plans.
So what is the big deal, if the government is telling me it is getting a market return? I heard the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) say: “Oh, the cost of borrowing from the teachers’ pension plan now is up quite high. We could do better in the market somewhere else.” If the government is not going to the Canada pension plan for this borrowing -- I assume that is not a better alternative -- what is the big deal for the $2-billion plan? It says it is going to let the Ministry of Housing borrow $2 billion out of Canada pension plan funds.
If the Treasurer is telling us he can get money cheaper somewhere, why is the government ripping off the housing corporation? If it is getting these funds from the Canada pension plan at a rate of interest that is too low, why is it ripping off the pension plan? I can tell members that the Premier strongly objected to the Treasurer of Ontario using Canada pension plan funds for government purposes, and yet he made a big announcement, “That is how we are going to finance some mortgages for the Ontario Housing Corp.” I do not understand how that makes particular sense.
One of the questions -- and the parliamentary assistant may be able to answer this as well -- is why this money, when the government borrows from pension plans, does not show up as a debt. Is that not a debt that this government owes? If it actually plans to repay it, why does that not show up as a debt when the government borrows money from these plans? If the government is going to give $2 billion to housing, why is that not a $2-billion debt?
1630
There is something wrong with it, but you guys keep saying, “Well, when you did it, there was something wrong, so we’re going to keep doing it that way.” I tell you, I have never heard anything so stupid in all my life. “You guys did it wrong. Therefore, that’s why we’re doing it wrong.” I will tell you, you are not going to last very long if that is your attitude, and it appears to be on a large number of issues.
The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course.
Mr. Harris: Well, actually, I caught myself using the word “stupid” again. I did not want to associate that unparliamentary -- as it may legally be -- tone of language through the Speaker, but I will talk through you, Mr. Speaker, and in a parliamentary fashion.
There are a number of reasons we understand that the government has to borrow money, and we will have many other forums to criticize why the level of borrowing is disgracefully high, but certainly as a matter of principle I wanted to indicate, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government, that we do not support the level of borrowing that Bill 117 asks for.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant wish to close the debate and respond?
Mr. Polsinelli: Just a few brief comments. In dealing with the situation that was raised by the member for Nipissing as to why certain things are done, often certain things are done in a certain fashion because it was the former Conservative government that established those practices. That does not necessarily mean that those practices are going to continue. That is the “why” they are done that way, it does not mean that they will continue to be done that way. That is the raison d’etre, so to speak; that is for my French colleagues.
In terms of the other statement that the member for Nipissing made indicating that the government borrows from the teachers’ superannuation fund because it is a source of cheap money, well, that is not exactly true. The teachers’ superannuation fund’s moneys cost us about 11.3 per cent today, compared to 10.1 per cent for Canada pension plan funds. If we look at the last five-year debenture that was issued by Ontario Hydro, that was issued at 10 per cent. So, effectively, it is not a source of cheap funds, but we should also look at what has been done with respect to that.
Members will recall that this government established the Rowan task force about a year or a year and a half ago to report exactly on this type of matter. In fact, they did report and they recommended that it may be an appropriate vehicle for the teachers’ superannuation fund to invest in the private marketplace. As a result of that report, the government has commissioned David Slater, whom we all know and love, to consult with the teachers and other affected groups and report back to us with respect to that issue.
That, I think, should also satisfy the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), who indicated that this particular bill should not be passed until such time as the government made a commitment to look at this issue. The government made that commitment a number of years ago through Rowan, his task force has reported, and now we are following up on his report.
The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour say “aye.”
All those opposed say “nay.”
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT
In the absence of Hon. R. F. Nixon, Mr. Polsinelli moved second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Polsinelli: In the 1988 budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) announced that amendments to the Financial Administration Act would be introduced to allow the province to take advantage of innovative financing techniques designed to improve the management of debt and public debt interest costs.
The current Financial Administration Act permits the Treasurer to buy and sell securities as part of the sound and efficient management of public debt and public moneys.
This amendment recognizes that financial innovation has occurred in a variety of forms, many of which are not securities in the conventional sense. This amendment modernizes the act to permit the province to respond to changes in financial markets and reduce interest costs for the Ontario taxpayer by taking advantage of opportunities offered by other forms of financial contracts.
The specific contracts cited in the amendment are various forms of foreign currency agreements, as well as interest rate exchange agreements, commonly known as interest rate swaps.
These kinds of financial transactions have become common tools of modern financial management for governments, corporations and financial institutions. Among those making use of these modern debt-management techniques are Ontario Hydro, the federal government and most other provinces.
The continuing trend towards deregulation and globalization of financial markets will likely lead to further innovation in the opportunities available for cost-effective public financing.
With this amendment to the Financial Administration Act, the Treasurer will be empowered, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to use such new opportunities for the benefit of the province.
The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Are there any comments or questions with respect to the comments made by the member for Yorkview?
Mr. Laughren: I just have one question. What is the significance of the date, September 30, 1989, in the previous bill?
The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment, or have questions on the remarks made by the member for Yorkview? If not, does the member for Yorkview wish to reply?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes, Madam Speaker. I guess we will have to go back to the previous bill even though we are dealing with this bill.
The Ontario Loan Act authorizes the province to borrow for a period of 18 months rather than 12 months. Those additional six months allow for a smooth transition in the case that the new loan bill is not approved within the 12-month period, so September 30, 1989, takes us six months past our fiscal year.
The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?
Mr. Laughren: I appreciate the member for Yorkview’s refusal to hide behind the rules and respond to questions on a previous bill. This bill is a remarkable bill. I think that, finally, the government has found a way to allow the Treasurer to use all of his talents. I think there is a sense over there that the Treasurer needs a new challenge, so what they have done is bring in this bill that is going to allow the Treasurer to speculate on things such as “foreign currency exchange agreements; interest rate exchange agreement; spot and forward foreign currency contracts and other securities, financial contracts, agreements and investments authorized by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”
This gives the Treasurer the right to speculate on foreign currencies, and even in forward foreign currencies. Can his privilege to speculate in commodity futures be far behind? I can see what the government is after here, but, holy smokes, I assume that the member for Yorkview will be able to tell us whether the proceeds from this kind of speculation will be deposited in Swiss banks or whether they will be in Ontario banks, because the bill really does take us one step further into speculation in financial currencies and in the financial markets.
1640
The member for Yorkview is shaking his head. The explanatory note to the bill states: “Section 3 of the Financial Administration Act, which authorizes the Treasurer to purchase securities for the purpose of managing the public money and the public debt, is re-enacted to also authorize” -- this is the addition – “the use of foreign currency exchange agreements, interest rate exchange agreements, and spot and forward foreign currency contracts.”
If “forward foreign currency contracts” is not a form of speculation, I do not know what is. If the member for Yorkview is satisfied that this is finally the outlet for the talents of the Treasurer that his party has been seeking for some time, then so be it.
But I want to tell the member for Yorkview not to pretend that this is not getting into forms of currency speculation. The Treasurer will truly become a speculator extraordinaire. Maybe now we are seeing why the Treasurer is so reluctant to put any kind of tax on land speculation in Ontario. He is a born speculator. Finally, it all comes together. In previous questions when I would ask the Treasurer, I could not understand why he was so reluctant to have a speculation tax on the exchange of land. Now I can see it. He was planning to get into the big leagues himself to do speculation in foreign currencies and forward foreign currency contracts.
I can see that we are going to have some fun with the Treasurer over the next few years, as we rate his performance in the land of speculation. I look forward to the response of the member for Yorkview as he tries to tell us why this is not putting the Treasurer into the category of currency speculator.
Mr. Polsinelli: I think the member for Nickel Belt, who normally is a very eloquent speaker and knows what he is talking about, today missed the mark. In fact, this is the furthest thing from speculation that can possibly be imagined. What this is doing is rationalizing debt management and money management for the province.
Let’s look at the simple thing that was explained to me this afternoon, by the way: what a foreign currency exchange agreement is. Let’s take an example of a $6-million debt to the United States government in American funds -- let’s take that as a hypothetical; what happens to the size of our debt if the American dollar goes up or down? Obviously, the size of our debt is either increasing or decreasing, depending on the rate of exchange for the American dollar.
What a foreign currency exchange agreement means is that we can enter into an agreement with an American counterpart who owes $6 million in Canadian funds. In fact, what we are doing is fixing our debt requirements. our debt to the United States, as it is fixing its debt to Canada. Irrespective of what happens to Canadian or American currency fluctuations, the size of our debt is going to remain the same.
That is not speculation; that is maintaining a fixed debt. Speculation means not entering into that agreement, because then we would be speculating on foreign money markets. If the American dollar went up, we would lose money. If the American dollar went down, we would make money. That is speculation. Not speculating is entering into the agreement.
Mr. Laughren: I am a little confused by the member for Yorkview. Does he have no faith in the marketplace at all?
Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Oh, come on, Floyd. You can’t have it both ways.
Mr. Laughren: It is not me. I am not the one. It is not my bill. It is the bill of the member for Yorkview, who argues out of one side of his mouth that there is absolutely no speculation involved here, that there is not speculation in foreign currencies whatsoever. Right? What he is saying is that this will prevent any kind of speculation, stabilizing the amount of debt between two countries if the value of the respective currencies goes up or down.
What I am asking the member for Yorkview is what it is that leads to this. Is it that he is afraid or his government is afraid that, given the kind of financial administration and stewardship by the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we will get the wrong end of the deal when the currencies do fluctuate, and therefore he had to bring in this bill to prevent that from happening?
That is what I gather he is saying, because if the value of the Canadian dollar goes up as a result of good stewardship by whomever, or bad stewardship by the other country, then Ontario would stand to gain.
So he cannot tell me he is bringing in this bill in order to protect some other country’s interests. He is bringing it in to protect the interests of Ontario, presumably, which must mean that he is worried about the value of the Canadian dollar going down. Does the member have no faith at all?
Ms. Bryden: I realize this bill is to presumably make the Treasurer a better money manager so that he can maximize the return from any moneys that flow to him from taxes, including taxes that we think are excessive, so that he can manage the public debt. It seems to keep going up rather than down, despite assurances in the elections that the Liberals were going to reduce the public debt and the deficits.
I would like to suggest that it would be much more productive if the Treasurer would become a true money manager and direct the money that does come into the Treasury in more ways which would increase productivity in Ontario -- direct his money into investments in programs which will increase provincial economic development and will increase jobs.
That is productive money management, I would say. In the long run it will make the economy much more flourishing and the Treasurer will not have to put in the kind of punishing tax increases that he put in because his debt is so high and growing and because he is hiring so many new civil servants and because he is not providing the kinds of services that people want. But he says he has to raise the money for us.
It seems to me that one of the things he should be directing more of his funds to is developing facilities for processing our resources at home. That is true investment and true money management. He should be directing more resources into replacing imports such as mining machinery and computer technology.
We are never going to be able to stop the brain drain from our universities if we do not have high technology developed in this country, if we do not have sophisticated machinery manufacturing. This would be an investment that would reduce his money needs in the long run so that he would not have to just simply be manipulating money; he would be putting investments into the province that would pay off.
He should also be looking at investments in human resources, and that will pay off in the long run. For instance, preventive programs in health will increase our human resources and have less money going to doctors and hospitals and to curing illnesses that should have not occurred in the first place.
Investment in occupational health and safety will actually increase our resources and not require much fewer powers by the provincial Treasurer to invest his income and manage his debt. All of these would increase our productivity.
1650
This is what we are disappointed in, that we have not seen this kind of money management by the Treasurer, and this is why we think this is simply a stopgap measure to increase the instruments that he can play with but not to direct his thinking towards how he can make investments in the province that will increase our economic development and our productivity.
He could also, of course, increase the money available if he cut out some of the tax concessions that he and Mr. Wilson are still giving to industry and to the well-off. Instead of allowing those concessions to continue, he could see that the money was directed to people who really need it and who will spend it on goods and services in the province.
He could also take another look at tax expenditures. We have not had a report on tax expenditures from the provincial Treasurer for a number of years. In Ottawa, they get one every year now. That gives the Minister of Finance and the rest of the Parliament an idea of where a lot of the concessions that companies are getting and a lot of the tax breaks that they are getting are actually going. That is something that I think should be built into his financial administration, which is the title of this act.
I would also like to see him and the cabinet insisting on the Ministry of Revenue’s having a requirement in its act that it must produce an annual statistical report on our tax system and having the actual returns analysed as to what sectors of the economy they come from and the extent of the unpaid taxes. He should have a reporting system from the companies on the amount of unpaid taxes, which are called deferred taxes.
He has lots to do in financial administration, and I think this kind of minor extension of his powers is simply ducking the whole question of how the financial administration of this province could be improved.
Mr. Harris: When I first looked at this bill, it struck me that it was pretty routine. I thought the flexibility was appropriate and I wanted to support it and, on behalf of my caucus, indicate our support. But then after having the parliamentary assistant explain, in answer to questions that were raised by my good friend and colleague the member for Nickel Belt, I started to wonder if we were talking about the same bill. I think, though, I am going to rest secure in the knowledge that my first reading of the bill was correct. I do not see anything in this particular bill that is not appropriate for the flexibility required of the Treasurer of the province.
I could take this opportunity to give an hour or two-hour tirade on all the other things the government is doing wrong, but I will pass on that, as once we finish this, I think we are going into budget debate itself, which might be a more appropriate forum for a number of those comments. Seeing that I have already had the opportunity to reply to the budget -- and what a despicable document it was -- I look forward to hearing from others of my colleagues in the House, from all three parties, who I am sure share the view that I put forward that the budget itself really is a disgrace.
Having said that, we plan to support Bill 118.
Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to thank all those people who understand and support the bill. I would also like to thank the ministry staff for having explained it to me. I think I understand some sections of it, although not all the sections, I frankly and candidly admit.
It is a fairly complex piece of legislation in the sense that it is dealing with money management and it is dealing with new and innovative tools that are at the disposal of many large corporations, including our federal government and many of the large banks.
I move second reading of the bill.
The Acting Speaker: Mr. Polsinelli has moved second reading of Bill 118.
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.
Hon. Mr. Conway: By consent of the House leaders we will conclude the day by continuing the adjourned debate on the budget.
BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I want to indicate that I am quite in agreement with proceeding with the budget debate. My colleague the House leader for the New Democratic Party probably is busy in committee at the moment and he had expressed concerns that it was not in Orders and Notices. In his absence, with our great friendship that we have been developing over the past period of time, I want to put forward those comments on his behalf. We do not object, even though a number of our speakers, not seeing it on the order paper, have gone on to other business. But we will accommodate as best we can.
Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to thank the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) for his remarks. I want to assure him that, while in the first instance the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), the House leader for the official opposition, did raise that concern, after a discussion with the chief government whip, he agreed that this could proceed.
Mr. Smith: I am certainly pleased to rise today in my place and make a few comments on the budget. This is the first opportunity I have had to say anything in this 34th Legislature.
I want to say, first, that I am very pleased to be back and join my colleagues who may have been re-elected and certainly join all the new members here, who have, in my opinion, added a great deal to this House. I say that to the opposition new members as well as my own colleagues on our government side. I think they have all done a commendable job and I certainly hope I can keep my end up in the future here.
The first thing I want to mention about the budget is that it was brought in in something of a historic fashion. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was not able to give the budget speech in the usual fashion but, under section 35(d) of our standing orders, he was able to table the document and therefore we could all see what good things were in this budget.
When I have talked with my municipal colleagues back in the riding or the constituency, they seem to always have a hand out, whether it be transportation or whether it be environmental projects, and I am sure the people of Lambton all feel they are worthy projects. I think it is the duty of the government to go ahead and fund these in the appropriate manner and with as many dollars as we can see fit to raise.
Some of the items I wanted to mention in the budget were, specifically, transportation and the environment, as well as agriculture and health care.
When we talk about health care, it does account for a third of the overall provincial budget, so certainly in that area we have to register some concern that this section of the budget does not expand as rapidly maybe as it has in the past. But with the money that we do raise, we hope that it will do a tremendous amount of good in all the different areas out in Ontario.
1700
Back in my own riding of Lambton, the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital has been doing a very commendable job in the past and I am sure it will in the future, but we have to see that it is given enough funds to carry on the work and the service to the people of that community and the surrounding communities. We also have two other hospitals within the Lambton community, which are Sarnia General Hospital and St. Joseph’s Hospital. They are located in Sarnia. I am sure this budget will help their funding position as well.
The one area that I think we hope to be able to address in the coming year would be the Ontario health insurance plan computer. I think it is a piece of equipment that has likely outlived its time. The government, along with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), should look into this to see whether it could be replaced this year.
I know there were many claims. In fact, I believe it was a year ago there were something like 81 million claims that went through this computer. Last year I believe it was up to 93 million. It has got to the point where this piece of equipment maybe cannot handle all the claims that are going through, and I think we should consider replacing it.
I certainly appreciate any funds the Ministry of Health has provided to our constituency and the many ways the Ministry of Health has provided them. I know that it is appreciated by all back in Lambton.
Another area that we get to talk about quite a bit back in Lambton is the environment. Because we have approximately 20 multinational petrochemical plants along the St. Clair River, I guess we are in the forefront quite a bit of the time. There are many spills that happen out of these plants.
I know the companies themselves want to keep a clean environment and they try to improve on what they have been doing over the years. But with this type of manufacturing and business that they run, we are certainly going to have problems from time to time. I think it is up to the Ministry of the Environment to help in any way possible to provide assistance and inspection services to see that that river and, in fact, quite a bit of our Great Lakes system is kept to the best care we can possibly give it.
Also with the Ministry of the Environment, we have what is called the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program. I know that in this budget there has been over $50 million added to it. Hopefully, some of those funds will go to improve the infrastructures of our communities. Some of them have got to the age where they have to be replaced. I think that our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will be able to help out in many ways.
It is incumbent upon all of us to clean up some of our municipal problems as well as our industrial problems. I think that adding funds to this MISA program is going to help this year and likely in years to come.
Also, when I think of the funds that we have got from the Ministry of the Environment back in Lambton, we have what they call the East Lambton water project. It is in process now. The first phase has been completed, and the second phase is well on its way. This will be providing Lake Huron water to about seven municipalities in the north part of Lambton. It is a much-needed project and has been going along almost on schedule. A few little gremlins have come into the system from time to time but, in general, it is a commendable job. We will have water for another four municipalities in the very near future.
I certainly feel we have benefited over the years and I am certain we are going to benefit in the year to come through this budget, with funding for the East Lambton water project as well as distributing water lines within the municipalities of Enniskillen and Moore townships as well as Sarnia township.
Although some may criticize this budget, I think I can see, from my point of view and in my constituency, a lot of good coming from it. I certainly want to commend the Treasurer for seeing fit to provide more funds to the environment. I know that has been an area which maybe he has not always appreciated in funding as much as it should be, but I think in this one we are starting to move ahead and, hopefully, it will help all of Ontario in the future.
Another area where I have always felt there is a need throughout any of our municipalities is good roads. As a member of a municipal council and a county council, I always thought that as long as we could show people where the money was being spent in whatever particular area they may have lived, we did not really get that many complaints on raising taxes from time to time, provided we could show the people that they were going to a good purpose.
With roads, I think that if we reconstruct when necessary and resurface, reconstruct brand-new roads, I guess, for that matter, the people are quite prepared to pay a little extra to travel on better roads. Certainly, it helps the car you may happen to drive. I have seen over the years many potholes on some of our roads, but through time, we get them fixed. I think the travelling public appreciates anything we do to restore our highways.
Here are some of the projects that have taken place in the past three years, since I have been a member. We have reconstructed Highway 21 from Reeces Corners right down to Dresden; the third phase will be completed this year to the town of Dresden. That will be a main artery north and south in the riding of Lambton, and we certainly appreciate those funds.
Another area we are working on this year is Highway 79, which runs from Alvinston down to Bothwell. That will be resurfaced and made a better road to travel for our many trucks which are heading south towards Windsor, Detroit and into the United States, in some cases.
Another road I have had many complaints about over the three years I have been a member is Highway 80. I suppose, if I could mention someone who played a part in Highway 80 in the first place, it was the previous member for Lambton, Lorne Henderson. He lives on that road. I do not know whether that had anything to do with getting it built in the first place, but it has deteriorated over the past number of years, certainly not just in the past three. I understand the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) is going to start to help update that road in the centre of Lambton which runs from east to west.
I believe the Minister of Transportation is helping out the people of Lambton in that way, and we appreciate those funds. Also, with regard to the many municipalities that receive supplementary funds or funds through the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp., we have gained a great number of dollars through those areas.
I do not have too many problems going back home and saying, “Yes, this budget did raise a lot of dollars, but I think we can see in Lambton many areas where these dollars are being spent and being spent very wisely.” I have to say that I am certainly prepared to support the Treasurer in what he has done here with his budget.
1710
The other area that maybe I am most familiar with is agriculture because that is my background along with a couple of other jobs. I guess I have always felt I was a farmer, regardless of what other things I may have attempted to do.
As a farmer, it was not a large increase this year. I do not believe I have that percentage figure. It was about a $15-million increase, but over the three years I have been a member here, the agriculture budget has increased by approximately 86 per cent or 87 per cent. I think we are gaining. I do not think we are in the league, shall we say, of possibly the Ministry of Health budget, but some would say that maybe we do not need as much as Health.
Everyone is entitled to his point of view. I guess I always feel that we can do a little more for agriculture because it is one of our primary industries. Whatever you give at the bottom always manages to rise to the top and do a lot of good for a lot of people.
Some of this new money that came into agriculture, I believe, will go for stabilization programs in the future. One that I know has just been announced within the last few days, along with the federal government I must add, is the tripartite on white beans. It is going to be a very large payout this year, I believe somewhere around $192.53 per metric tonne to the white bean producers of 1987. That will help last year’s producers of white beans.
I do not want to take too many more moments of time here in discussing the budget, because I know there are a lot of members who would like to add their opinions and comments. I just want to say that as I go back and talk to the people of Lambton, I think our Treasurer has had a big job to do. I think he has shown leadership in the Treasury, the finance department, over the three years.
I think we have spent $7 billion in capital funds somewhere. These capital funds will be part of projects that will be here for the next generation to enjoy. It is not as if we have mortgaged the future of our children with unwise spending, shall we say. I think there have been some very good projects started in the Treasurer’s time and I am certainly proud to be a member of this government.
With these few comments, I would like to say that I am certainly supporting the Treasurer on his budget and I hope everything will go well in the year.
The Acting Speaker: Would any other honourable member wish to participate? The member for Nickel Belt.
Mr. Laughren: I really should not speak a second time on the budget, I guess.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much for informing me of that. The member for Nipissing.
Mr. Harris: I just have comments on that.
The Acting Speaker: There are no comments. Oh, I am sorry. Comments and questions.
Mr. Harris: I just want to comment on the remarks of the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith) Has that riding changed? It is just Lambton, is it not? -- particularly his comments on the deterioration of the roads in and around his riding that I heard him talking about. I apologize that I was not able to be here for the entire speech, but as I was coming in the member for Lambton was making comments and expressing concerns on behalf of his constituents that the funding for roads was just not enough to keep up in his riding and he hoped that with the massive tax grab the Treasurer was wreaking on the residents of Ontario they might be able to eke out a little more money for roads.
I want to agree with the member. I want to say that I too share the concern that this is an abominable budget. I want to agree with the member for Lambton about the charade and statements of the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation that the need for this tax grab was to put more money into infrastructure. When you look at the capital budgets, they have not gone up. When you look at page 50 of the budget, the capital budget this year over last year is up $83 million, I think. If you also look at the line item that talks about government services, it is up $83 million, which means that all the increase in capital spending is going to house new civil servants, some 8,000 or 9,000 depending on the estimate looked at in the budget.
It is a disgrace and I too join the member for Lambton and congratulate him on -- I understand he has to support it, being a Liberal member, but I read between the lines the total condemnation and lack of money –
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired.
Mr. Mahoney: I want to congratulate the member for Lambton. I find it interesting, though, in the response to his speech and in many of the other comments, that many members of the opposition, I believe, are operating on the premise that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it, that it does not necessarily have to be based on the facts of the budget.
The example that was given earlier by the member for Nipissing was the $2-billion fund announced for housing. He suggested in his comments that this should be added to the debt of the government. I do not know how he can suggest that or perhaps try to cause concern where concern need not be caused, because that fund was simply made available for housing corporations to borrow from and will be guaranteed by the government.
I do not know how you can translate a loan guarantee in a housing program as progressive as that as being debt that should be added to the government’s overall debt.
I also find it interesting that he would stand up after the member for Lambton gave a very good account of the many problems across the province, Madam Speaker, which you are well aware of, where we have had to go in and correct many of the problems that have been caused by many years of neglect -- not only in the areas of roads and environment, but in the area of education, where we have had to go in and infuse a substantial amount of money to make up for the fathers of underfunding, who for years and years --
Mr. Chiarelli: Scandalous.
Mr. Mahoney: They were scandalous. It is unbelievable how they ignored the need to put money into the infrastructure of this province. To now stand up in response to the honourable member’s speech and suggest he is agreeing with him about the problem with the roads is really tantamount to admitting the fault of the former Conservative government in not taking care of the necessary infrastructure in this province.
Mr. Smith: I certainly want to thank the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) for his comments in trying to straighten out the member for Nipissing who I think must have come in a little after the fact. I was just trying to say that we are very proud of all the dollars that have gone into Lambton and we are certainly working on them and, hopefully, trying to get more and make the roads that much better.
He did bring up a comment I maybe forgot to mention. I have heard many times from the opposition about all the civil servants this government has created. Well, some of them have been put in place because of federal legislation. I think of the Young Offenders Act, which has required the province to hire many more staff to carry out that legislation. That is one area.
But I also want to refer back to, I think it was 1977 or 1978, when the former administration -- I certainly would not want to mention what party it was -- had, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90,000 civil servants. We have yet to achieve that number. I am just trying to straighten out a few figures here which have been thrown around from time to time. I hope that the member for Nipissing is listening when I say that we hired only 89,900 and they, 11 years ago, had 90,000 civil servants.
1720
Mr. McCague: I am pleased to join in this debate on the budget of the Treasurer for this fiscal year. I am also pleased that I was able to withstand the steamroller effect of the Liberal crushing that we took at the polls some months ago and was returned to this House for -- soon to commence -- my 14th year.
We have had in Simcoe county three Progressive Conservatives representing that area for a long time, and this time we have one Liberal, my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen).
Mr. Ballinger: They finally got smart over there.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. McCague: Well, they are a lot brighter than in some parts of the province, which I will not name.
However, it has been a pleasure to have been a member of this House, as I say, for almost 14 years. Having started out as a back-bencher and then a parliamentary assistant and then a cabinet minister and then a member of the opposition and now a member of the third party, I think I did everything in reverse. However, it is an experience I am sure I or anybody else in this House would not want to miss. I have not very much money, but I have a little bit of money to bet that there are a lot of people in this parliament who will not be back in the next one, and they will not be all through resignations or refusals to run either.
It is interesting what the people in my riding are saying about the Treasurer’s budget. I am fortunate enough that a lot of people contact me. I sent out a questionnaire and had about 1,500 replies. I will read the kinds of things the people in my riding think about the Treasurer’s budget. The problem is that I do not have any nice things to say about it if the only thing I do is to read what the people in my riding are saying.
“The uncontrolled rape of the average middle-and lower-class taxpayer to cover the ever-escalating cost of government spending through mismanagement and waste and greed.” That is what one person thinks.
Another says: “Lower the deficit and the money saved on interest can be used to cut taxes or spend as needed. No business or person can continually run up their finances. Some day someone must pay the piper. Bring down the deficit. Show some guts and leadership.”
“Governments waste too much money doing studies.” Now, if there ever was a government that knew how to do studies, it is this one. Study, study, study. Action? No, no, no.
“Governments waste too much money doing studies, therefore wasting valuable time, so when they come to fix the problem it costs four to five times the amount it would cost originally.”
As we all know, the increase in sales tax, the one per cent increase -- or about 15 per cent increase, actually -- taps the average family for something in the area of $100 per year. One person suggested that the Treasury should use the extra funds it is raising to give the Treasurer a $100 going-away present on this constituent’s behalf.
I would not want to offer the Treasurer a going-away present just to get rid of him. The Treasurer is a gentleman who has been a member in this House for many, many years, a member for whom I have all kinds of respect, a member who I thought, honestly, would be better than he is as Treasurer. He is hoping, I am sure, that the increases he incorporated in this budget will be forgotten three years from now. I suggest to him that, on that one, he is dreaming.
I want to give him credit, though, for being able to produce a budget and use the kind of language that really disguises everything from even the trained eye. It is almost an impossibility to figure out what it is the Treasurer is doing in any particular ministry or in any particular capital area.
I accused the Treasurer a couple of years ago, when he made his big announcement of $850 million over five years towards capital for hospitals, of really doing only this: using the $170 million that was the customary expenditure over a period of years, multiplying by five, and putting in the budget “$850 million.”
To this day, and after having raised it with the Treasurer on several occasions, I have not been able to get him to answer the question as to whether the $850 million he is putting in is new money or is simply five times $170 million. He just will not answer that question.
The same kind of disguise creeps into this budget. I really think the Treasurer is getting better at it. Each time it is a little harder to figure out where the money is supposed to go and then at the end of the year to figure out just where it went. That is not to denote any kind of dishonesty whatsoever. It is just simply to say that it is so complicated and so well printed that it is hard for the average member to figure out what has happened.
Had we had the opportunity of getting to the estimates of the various ministries last year, we would have been able to figure out the answers to some of those questions, but as members know, we did not have the opportunity to consider the budgets of many ministries.
A member can ask a question in the House, and of course the minister, as was the case with governments for a long time, can answer the question in whatever fashion he chooses, or not at all if he chooses. But it is different when you are in committee and in estimates. At least, if the minister does not know the answer, he can turn to his civil servants who do have the answers. We get fair and reasonable answers when that process is allowed to continue.
In 1986 and 1987, the Liberals overspent their capital allocations by $387 million and underspent by $227 million, for a net overexpenditure of $151 million. Not one ministry achieved its budget plan; 15 ministries overspent and seven ministries underspent.
The accounting of that is just a nightmare for all members of this House. That was in 1986-87. In 1987-88, the capital allocations were overspent by a total of $70 million and underspent by a total of $185 million, for a net underexpenditure of $115 million. Again, not one ministry achieved its budgetary plan; nine ministries overspent and 14 underspent.
Generally speaking, it is more difficult to accurately budget capital funds -- in favour of the problem the Treasurer has -- than to budget operating funds. Capital funds are often given to other levels of government and institutions for various projects, such as the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, sewers and rental accommodation.
The government does not have control of these projects, which are vulnerable to a whole series of problems that can affect the final cost and the year in which the money is transferred. These problems include delays in site acquisition, rising real estate values, delays in rezoning and local approval, construction delays and strikes. Thus, it is not unusual for a ministry not to achieve its capital budget plan.
What is unusual is the degree to which individual ministries have overspent or underspent. For example, rising real estate values can hardly explain the Ministry of the Solicitor General’s overspending its capital budget by 242.8 per cent in 1986-87. Nor can construction delays explain the Ministry of Housing’s underspending its allocation by $63 million in 1986-87 and then, after that lesson, by $34 million in 1987-88. We all know the housing problems that are facing every riding in this province.
1730
Certain other oddities are prevalent. In 1986-87, three ministries, the Board of Internal Economy, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, spent $11 million on capital projects in spite of the fact that they did not receive any allocations for capital in the budget. On the other hand. the Ministry of Revenue received an allocation of $30 million which it never did spend.
Again in 1987-88, three ministries -- that is, the ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Labour and Skills Development -- spent a total of $13 million on capital projects in spite of the fact that they did not receive any allocation for capital in the budget. Also in 1987-88, two ministries which function as advisory bodies, the office responsible for senior citizens’ affairs and the office for disabled persons, received capital allocations for the first time. It is difficult to understand what capital projects an advisory body would have.
A comparison shows problems within particular ministries. For example, Environment and Housing have grossly underspent their capital allocations for the last two years while the Solicitor General has grossly overspent its allocation in both years. The member for Lambton was explaining to us in his remarks what was needed from Environment in his riding. If it is underspent, why did he not get some of it?
Economic development projects were the biggest percentage underspender in both years, despite the fact that their allocation was slashed in half in the second year.
Other ministries go from one extreme to the other, overspending in one year, underspending the next. The ministries of Health and Agriculture and Food are the notable examples.
Transportation accounts for almost half of all government capital spending. However, because of budget restructuring, it is impossible to isolate figures for the Ministry of Transportation alone. It is included with Culture and Communications and Citizenship. Of the total allocation for the four, Transportation accounted for 95 per cent in 1986-87 and 97.5 in 1987-88.
I would like to go through some of the highlights of some of the programs in my riding.
One of the things that the government of the day likes to do is recite everything that happened in the last 42 years or that did not happen in the last 42 years and use that as its excuse for not having done something, or say that what was done before was the impediment in its way and so on and so forth. I think personally, as one of the quiet members of this Legislature, one who does some thinking about these things, it is about time that the government of the day stopped blaming something that the NDP said was its policy 20 years ago or something we did four years ago as its excuse for doing nothing.
I mean that sincerely. It is not a criticism, it is just a question: why do they not get on with the job, as the honourable member from Mississauga West knows? Now I know that member -- and the thought has gone through his mind, I am told, that --
Mr. Ballinger: It wasn’t a very long trip.
Mr. McCague: I did not say “a” thought had gone through his mind, I said “the” thought has gone through his mind that he might return to the laurels of a certain office in Mississauga at some point, but I am glad to know he is going to be here for at least the three years following November 14.
Mr. Mahoney: It will be longer than that.
Mr. McCague: Well, maybe. I know he can test the water pretty well; he is quite an opportunist.
However, I think it is time that the government stopped bringing all the history up and got on with the job that it was elected to do. After all, people did not elect them to criticize the 42 years of PC government. The only thing I am sure of is that there will not be a Liberal government for 42 years.
Mr. Ballinger: Don’t bet on that.
Mr. McCague: If the honourable member would like to bet on that, I would be very glad to join him in that.
As I was saying, in the figures, the Ministry of the Environment was underspent in capital projects last year, and God knows there are enough capital projects out there. We all have them, all 130 of us, in our own ridings. So I do not think there is any need for underspending in a ministry as important as the Ministry of the Environment.
I have had opportunities to talk to many of the civil servants within that ministry and discuss with them various projects in my riding. I sense, among those civil servants, a little bit of impatience and a little bit of concern that it is very difficult to get the minister to approve the projects as they would recommend them to him, and I know them well enough there to know that they would not recommend something to him for which they did not have money.
The absence of the Minister of the Environment here today for Canadian Environment Week I think was inappropriate. I would suggest to him that he should not be looking after his own personal popularity and he should remain in the office and approve some of those projects that are so important to all the members of this House.
I am glad the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General (Mr. Offer) is here. He has been very gracious. He has come up to my part of the country a couple of times this year. The subject, as he well knows, is the continuation of a courthouse in Alliston.
Mr. Ballinger: Did he bring you a cheque?
Mr. McCague: No, he did not bring a cheque and he did not say yes and he did not say no. What I am trying to get from him is a yes, but it may be that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is the one who has to give that yes.
A big part of it is the presence of Honda in Alliston, which now has 1,000 employees. Alliston is a growing place. We got into a little dispute which we do not need to raise here as to whether the town asked the courts to leave or whether they left of their own volition. However, leaving all those things aside, probably within the next week or so the parliamentary assistant could get that approved for continuance. He is getting it from all parts of the province. The court facilities are loaded and that one, I think, would help alleviate some of the problems and would be a service to about 20,000 people in that general area where I really feel that it is needed.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is not with us this afternoon but I wanted to --
Mr. Ballinger: He’s out --
Mr. McCague: That is right. If the member was doing something, I would get to him too, but he is not doing anything.
I am sorry the Minister of Education is not here because, really, I wanted to thank him. We are very fortunate in Simcoe county that about $8 million was provided to both the public and the separate boards for capital construction. It is a growing part of the province and, for that, we are thankful.
Mr. Mahoney: You are thankful for something.
Mr. McCague: Very much so, yes. Quite a balanced perspective, I have, much more so than the member, even though he is part of the government.
However, I guess the one promise of the government that comes back to me more often than not is the promise of the 60-40 funding -- over a period of time, granted, but the government has slipped on that. Instead of going ahead, it is going backwards.
Mr. Ballinger: We’re putting it all in the capital.
Mr. McCague: The member does not know anything about it, really.
The government is going backwards on the 60-40 split and I think it is going to have to come good on its promise one of these days.
Mr. Ballinger: Capital is up 400 per cent.
1740
Mr. McCague: And so is the revenue, so the government is all set. It does not have a thing to worry about.
The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has been very active in our part of the country. As members probably know, the shipyards closed over a year ago now in Collingwood and, at the time of the closing the announcement was made that Magna would locate a plant there, the opening of which is Friday of next week.
We are still having some difficulties with the people who became unemployed, the older workers, when the shipyards closed down. At a meeting that was called two or three months ago, after nobody really came forward for the first year, there were 90 people who turned out who were interested in some kind of adjustment and assistance or further training. I understand that of that 90, about 60 have some part-time employment, although not at the level that they were accustomed to when they were working at the shipyard.
I know that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) tried to get a little fancy during the last election on the business of retraining. He did not want to go along with the federal government on a program they had. He wanted to start up his own. To my knowledge that program really has not done a whole lot.
On skills development, I understand that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) incidentally was, I am sure, with my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre in Barrie last week. I was sorry I could not get up. I know that the member for Simcoe Centre would look after him well, but he was telling them there how glad he was to come in the middle of the afternoon, because if he could get there in the middle of the afternoon he would not have to stay here and answer questions. I cannot quite understand that line of thinking, but that is his line of thinking.
I figured it out today. I understand that he has told -- or maybe he has not told -- but I understand that many of the directors around the country have been told that there has been $43 million taken out of the minister’s budget. The reason for that apparently is that the skills development program is not as popular as originally envisaged. I do not know who knows what was originally envisaged. I do not think any members over there do either.
Mr. Ballinger: Cut out the hearsay; let’s have some fact.
Mr. McCague: That is fact, sir. The other side of it is that in my area they tell me the demand for skills development and for the programs that come under that is up 30 per cent. But the minister or his people are saying that it is down and therefore we can take out $43 million.
If we can ever find out what budgets have been cut, we can find out what the Premier or his cabinet were not sincere about last September 10. It looked good at the time but one can figure it right there. I think that is a disgrace. It is another broken promise and there are many.
The number of questions that have been raised in the House by both opposition parties regarding health is an indication of how well or how poorly the Ministry of Health is doing at the present time. The Minister of Health likes to stand in her place, look at the Treasurer and say, “Mr. Treasurer, I am being very fiscally responsible. I am just telling everybody ‘No.’”
She turns sometimes to the Chairman of Management Board to see if he really says no too. Then the heads wag a bit and she carries on saying, “We have to be responsible. We have to have a review, review, review.” The problem is, it does not matter what the review says -- with one exception, St. Mary’s Hospital in Timmins.
We have the same thing at North Bay Civic Hospital. There are other hospitals where there is nothing but compliments in the reports that come back from the team, yet the minister reads her cue cards, 1 to 10, and says the same thing and the same thing over and over again.
One of the interesting things is this business about the Wellesley Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital and the fact that Dr. Cameron has had to cut back. He had his budget cut. I grant it was not the Minister of Health who cut the budget. It was the hospital because of its dire circumstances that had to cut it from $1.6 million to $1 million. So Dr. Cameron had to send out a letter telling them, “We have all kinds of time and talent to do Workers’ Compensation Board cases and treat people from all over the world, but we cannot get the money to look after Ontarians.”
I think the member for Nipissing made a good suggestion today, that it may be a lot cheaper if the government were to buy the joints for these people.
I got an interesting letter from a fellow today. I am not going to read his name into the record but I will be glad to show it to any member. This fellow was one of the 100 recipients of awards given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) a few weeks ago. He says:
“I am in receipt of Dr. Hugh Cameron’s letter which cancels my scheduled operation for my hip to July 14, 1988. I understand and appreciate that I am one of the lucky ones to receive such early treatment.
“At the present time I am bedridden and in intense pain. To ask someone to persevere with this pain, when an operation at once could alleviate it, is inhuman. It is time the powers that be are made to realize the serious situation which has been brought about by poor planning on the part of the provincial government.
“We all have appreciated our OHIP policy, but if the time has arisen when this government regulation no longer meets the needs of the people, it should be adjusted to do so.
“You will note by my letterhead that I am a breeder of animals and at no time would permit an animal to persevere with pain, discomfort, and experience a nervous strain which at my age will be very difficult to overcome. Please express my feelings where it will do the most good for our cause.”
I am hoping that this is the place where it might do the most good for his cause, but we are beginning to wonder, on this side of the House, if it makes any difference, if the government really cares.
“The Wellesley Hospital has done an outstanding service to our community. My past experience with three operations by your Dr. James and Dr. Cameron have allowed me to continue in my way of life. I am a very active, young, 72-year-old, and for a man to be forced to give up a year of his life at this stage of his life, which will never be regained, is beyond comprehension.
“Minister Caplan should never have suggested seeing another doctor. Has she forgotten that this is a democracy and she is there on our behalf?
“Again, thank you and your staff”--
Mr. Ballinger: For being such a nice guy.
Mr. McCague: He is a nice guy. He may well be a Liberal too, but he knew that if he wrote to a Progressive Conservative member in this province, it would at least get mentioned in the House. He knew if it went over there, it would just get lost.
Hon. Mr. Conway: George, George.
Mr. McCague: George?
Hon. Mr. Conway: What would Wally Downer think of this?
Mr. McCague: The only problem with the House leader is that everything works well but his memory. He does not remember what he used to say when he was over on this side of the House.
Hon. Mr. Conway: What would Wally Downer think of this performance?
Mr. McCague: He would probably think it was much too low-key. I am sure he would think it was much too low-key.
Interjection.
Mr. McCague: No, you are quite a nice bunch over there, really. Once we get you out of these surroundings, you are not bad at all.
There is an interesting thing going on. I remember when we were in government, “arrogance” was a word the House leader could yell across the floor with great volume.
However, I want to just take a moment or two to discuss a couple of things that are happening. I am sure the House leader is not happy about the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) stood in this House some months ago now and announced there would be a committee of this House touring the province to discuss county government.
I said that day, and I did not say it nearly strongly enough, that it was really nothing more than a history lesson for eight unemployed back-benchers, and a geography lesson too. That would not be so bad, but the statement that was made said it would be a committee of this Legislature. I would be quite content for the House leader to do as much research as he wants to see if that had ever been done before, when a committee of this Legislature happens to be eight Liberals. I do not think that has ever happened.
1750
Then to add insult to injury, I understand the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) is now the chairman of a committee studying waste management. again a committee on which, to my knowledge, there are no other members of this assembly.
Hon. Mr. Conway: Caucus committee.
Mr. McCague: Well, caucus committee. I call a lot of it cockeyed; that is what it is. Mr. House leader, you are quite a learned parliamentarian and you are part of the leadership over there. I have never seen such abuse of the parliamentary process as you have invoked in this particular case of county government.
The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course. Address your remarks through the Speaker.
Mr. McCague: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I sent you up a note. I thought I would converse with you, and I just go ahead with the others now. I am sorry about that.
I still think that should be very seriously looked at.
The member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) --
Mr. Ballinger: Nice guy.
Mr. McCague: An excellent gentleman, yes. We should have more of them in that party. The day the announcement of the committee and the members of the committee was made in the House, the member for Oxford, to his credit, came to me and said, “Would your party be interested in putting somebody in this group that is going to study government?” I said, “I am sure it would.” He had the right idea. He understands county government; he understands democracy. But somehow there is somebody over there who wants to have a geography lesson for eight unemployed back-benchers. There are not many things that have disturbed me --
Mr. Ballinger: See that, Charlie? You give an inch, he takes a mile.
Mr. McCague: No, I was ahead of Charlie. I had mentioned it in my comments to the minister at the time and Charlie spoke to me afterwards.
I have never seen a bigger abuse of the parliamentary system than that since I came here; I have not, in almost 14 years. I think the government should ask for it -- answer for it.
Mr. Wildman: They’re asking for it.
Mr. McCague: They are asking for it, and combined, we may be able to give it to them in about three or four years from now.
Mr. Ballinger: Don’t hold your breath. You’re going to have to do better than you’re doing.
Mr. McCague: I am not too worried about that.
An hon. member: They are going to do it to themselves.
Mr. McCague: Yes, that is true.
In the Ministry of the Environment in the area of waste management, I know that all the members over there are feeling the same pressures as to what the minister does. I know that when we were the government, the tendency was to keep out of the waste management business and leave it fairly and squarely at the local level. The local-level politicians are becoming so frustrated with any system now that they are really asking that the provincial government show some leadership.
Mr. Ballinger: They want to cop out.
Mr. McCague: The member has his own explanation.
They are becoming frustrated with it and they want some top-down leadership, even top-down action, if you want to put it that way. In my general area, the mayor of Orillia had a motion, seconded by the mayor of Collingwood and signed by the mayor of Midland. The “therefore” clause is, “Be it resolved that the member municipalities of the association petition the province of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assume a co-ordinating role to assist the municipalities of Ontario to resolve the serious solid waste management problems now facing the majority of municipalities in Ontario.”
Mr. Ballinger: It is called passing the buck.
Mr. McCague: I would not be so bold as to suggest that they were passing the buck. If the member knew anything about the municipal government system, he would know what a problem it is. It is just those kinds of comments that will probably assure that he never gets in those two rows there and maybe moves even farther back in the area that he is in.
I think we are all here to help each other, and if the government can do something to help the municipalities, why would it not want to? I know they love to blame the municipalities. They dumped Sunday shopping on them. If it is not a municipal problem, it is a federal problem, and what the devil are they doing over there on most of these issues? Absolutely nothing.
It is not as if they do not have help. I take a lot of pride in the fact that for seven years I was Chairman of Management Board, and during that time we were able to reduce the number of civil servants by almost 8,000. It has taken the Liberals only three short years to increase that number by 9,000.
Mr. Ballinger: You put everybody on contract, George.
Mr. McCague: The contracts were counted. Everything was fair and square; they just never believed it. I am not even sure that this figure, the 9,000 increase figure, includes contract, because the Liberal Party was always screaming about that over the years and did not have any proof. I am sure they know how to figure it all out if they want to. I am sure they do.
With respect to the Ministry of College and Universities, I think the funding of education at the higher level is going to be a problem. It has been said that not everybody is going to be able to go to university and not everybody is even going to have the choice of university and/or colleges.
I had the privilege of being the first or the founding chairman of the Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology, a college that has done very well since the founding year of 1967. I noted on the radio over the weekend that they are still conducting the same kind of sound financial planning that was instituted by the first chairman and that they do in fact have a little money in the bank, so that if the government proceeds to lower transfers or anything like that -- God forbid -- they will at least be in a position to carry on for some time beyond that kind of D-Day.
I know it is a real problem. The plant and equipment are a problem for the numbers of students there are who want to go to these institutions today. I know full well the problems that we had with parents expecting that the only place for their son or daughter to go was to university. It took a lot of years to explain to them that the education they got at community colleges was a valuable education. For the first 15 years or so of the college, the rate of employment of the graduates was something in the area of 93 per cent, which is phenomenal.
I just encourage the government to adequately fund both the universities and the colleges, the colleges particularly, where the courses they take and the degree they get does really equip them for furtherance in the workforce.
I would just like to reiterate to the House leader that if it is not too late for him to reverse that business of the county government study group and include some members of the other parties of this House, I think he would be correcting a very, very serious wrong.
My area of the province, thanks to good government for the last 45 years -- particularly good for the first 42 of that and pretty good for the next three of that -- has done particularly well. I guess that is because of its proximity to Toronto; the fact that Magna went to Collingwood, or some subsidiary industries to that; that Honda came to Alliston and F & P came to Tottenham. The growth is really phenomenal.
Interjection.
Mr. McCague: What did the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) say came?
Mr. McLean: Mitsubishi to Midland.
Mr. McCague: Well, I am talking about my riding. I thought the member had a chance to speak on this a little earlier.
The Deputy Speaker: It now being six o’clock, would you like to move adjournment?
Mr. McCague: Yes, I would like to do that, Mr. Speaker.
On motion by Mr. McCague, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.