Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, all future legislation which would establish an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or create new direct expenditures or tax expenditures must contain a sunsetting provision which would, after a specified period of time, require mandatory review of the original legislation by a committee of this House. The committee would be mandated to report to this House on the impact of the legislation, the degree to which the program and policy objectives have been met and make recommendations as to whether the legislation, regulations, program or agency should be continued, terminated or amended.

Further, this House is of the opinion that all existing legislation which has established an agency, board, commission or regulatory system or created new direct expenditures or tax expenditures should, over the next five years, be reviewed by a committee of this House with the mandate indicated above.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Harris has moved the resolution standing in his name. The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to see the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer here bright and early this morning. I am sure he was out celebrating the unorthodox introduction of the budget yesterday. Some other party must have been celebrating it too. I am not sure why.

I am pleased to have a few moments today to talk about my resolution and to explain the resolution to the House and the reason for it. First of all, very briefly, I want to make sure everybody understands and that everybody is clear as to what I am asking for.

This is the first half of the resolution. I am asking that when a program is created by the government, any program that is created to spend money and, presumably, to have a desired objective -- for example, out of yesterday’s budget there is a proposal to create a new program in the field of housing; presumably, that program will require legislation or it will require regulation or it will require something to implement it.

What I am saying is that attached to that new program which will come forward this year is the stipulation that would require over a specified period of time -- normally, on sunsetting five years seems to be a standard time -- that would carry with it a proviso that within, let us say five years’ time, it would be reviewed by a committee of the Legislature. That would force the ministry to explain publicly how well the program is doing: is it meeting its objectives; would those objectives be met without the program. If the committee came to the latter conclusion, I think the obvious conclusion this Legislature would want to come to is to make a recommendation that it quit wasting $50 million a year because it is not doing any good.

If the program is very successful and there is the demand for more money, and the committee determines that, gee, it really has been a good program -- it has created the desired benefits -- the committee might recommend that more money be put into that program.

Having it go to a committee ensures two things. One, it ensures that the review is done. It ensures that programs do not sit there on the shelf, that when budget time comes along -- I think by now most of you who are involved with ministries in any capacity realize what happens over there. Everybody, particularly at the top end of the civil service, gets so caught up in the day to day that the amount of time spent getting the minister’s briefing book ready so he does not look like a dummy when he is asked a question is astronomical.

I might add that maybe that is one of the things we should review, because the amount of money we waste trying to figure out what question we are going to ask, and making sure we know the answer before we ask it so we can try to make the minister look like a dummy, is astronomical too. It may be one program we might want to review.

That is really what I am asking in the first half of the resolution. Is that expenditure achieving the desired result? I know, and I am quite certain, that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of expenditure programs that do not get the proper look, that do not get the proper review.

This also alerts the public because it will go to a committee, and if it is a housing program, for example, it could invite input. In the case of the program I am talking about it could invite input from tenant groups, from those interested in housing, from builders’ associations, asking: “What do you think of the program? How has it been working?”

That is what I am asking in the first half of the resolution. I think it is a responsible way to proceed. I served notice last fall that whenever new programs were coming forward I would be introducing amendments asking them to be sunsetted. The first one was the program brought forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) on -- what the heck was that one? I moved the amendment. That was the employee share ownership plan. Sorry, it was the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), setting up the employee share ownership plan, which involved a tax expenditure. It cost the government money by virtue of a tax expenditure.

For those of you who do not understand what tax expenditure means, some people call them loopholes. Other people call them incentives to the tax system. That is what we are talking about.

I moved that amendment and the minister said yes and accepted it. Right now, I think the program is appropriate for today, I think it will work; but let us face it, experience sometimes tells us that the program does not always meet exactly the objectives we set out. I think that was a responsible position to take. I guess what I am saying is that we should do that for them all.

The second part of the resolution deals with all of those currently on the book, all of those that are there now, such as the rent review legislation and some of the housing expenditures over the past few years. It might be interesting to decide whether that is a good way to spend money. Is it achieving the desired goal?

For anyone in North Bay or northern Ontario who is watching, I have said to this House on two or three occasions that some of the grants that are given to companies in this booming economy are not necessary. I am not going to name names, but I am willing to put my own riding and the city of North Bay, if you like, on the line and on the table. I know for a fact that there are companies that have received grants from the federal government, the provincial government, the Northern Ontario Development Corp., the northern Ontario regional development program, all the programs, that would have proceeded without those grants. It should be looked at.

1010

Nordev was a program that came in under the former government during a recession, during a time when everything was shrinking. Entrepreneurs were saying: “Hey, 22 per cent; am I going to invest? The market has gone down. I am going to invest?” So the government developed a program to say: “Gosh, we’ve got so many people unemployed. We think the economy will get better in the future, but in the mean time we will provide an incentive for you.”

Is that program appropriate five years later? It may be, but maybe it should be modified some way. Maybe it is no longer necessary under certain examples. That is the kind of thing I am talking about.

Some will say: “That is a massive job. You are asking for everything to be referred.” I am asking for everything to be referred because I do not want the civil service to be the ones that select which ones will be reviewed. I want us to determine that. I want the politicians to determine that.

If the resolution said five a year or 10 a year, there is a way that the 10 you review somehow or other are the ones the civil servants want you to review. If I was a civil servant, I would want you to review my good ones; I would not want you to review my bad ones. That is human nature, I understand that; as politicians, we all must understand that.

I want them all referred. If in a given year there is not time to do them all the committee will make the determination, but at least they will be referred to the committee and some comment will be passed on them and some will obviously be gone into in more depth than others.

I have said in five years because the first half of my resolution says that all future ones have a sunset provision. There may be some examples where two years or three years is appropriate, but the normal sunset provision is five years. If this resolution is accepted and implemented by the government, that means nothing happens for five years. I am saying that during that five year period we could gain a lot of experience starting to review all the existing ones. To me, it is a logical way to proceed.

I wanted to take a little bit of time to explain what my resolution is asking for. It is not asking that anything be cancelled. It is not asking that the government will be criticized. It is asking in a responsible way that politicians make decisions on how money is spent. The Treasurer, the cabinet, the Premier and the ministers will still decide what they are going to do in their programs.

All I am saying is that some time, five years after they do it, surely we are entitled to take another look at it. When the legislation comes forward, we get a chance to debate it. I am saying let us look at it again five years hence and see whether it lived up to what the intention was. Was it a wise way of spending money? Are we getting value for that money or are there other ways that money could be spent to give more value to us?

I mention it because the budget came down yesterday and I want to talk about the budget a little bit. I have been one who has been very critical of government spending. I have been very critical that the increase in spending has been double and triple the rate of inflation every year for four years. It is over 40 per cent, 10 per cent a year on average over the last four years.

This is at a time when Ottawa had inherited that kind of spending. The members saw what happened in Ottawa. They used to spend about the same as we did on interest, about 10, 11 or 12 per cent. Pre-Trudeau, 10 per cent of the federal budget was spent on interest payments, and post-Trudeau 30 per cent, which is 30 cents of every tax dollar.

In Ontario, through that same period of time, it was 10, 11 or 12 cents and then interest rates went high, but it has been in that range and it has stayed in that range while the current administration has been in place. In the early Trudeau years it stayed there during the first few years too because the economy was good and there were massive tax increases. There was so much new spending in other areas that those percentages went up, so the interest percentage went along with it.

When you reach a downturn a lot of things happen. The government has broadened the base of spending in this budget. It has not, as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) tried to argue on the radio yesterday, invested in infrastructure.

I refer members to page 50 of this year’s budget and page 50 of last year’s budget, which talk about infrastructure. The increase in spending this year is $3.1 billion. If members look on page 50 of last year’s budget, $2.7 billion was spent on capital. If they look on page 50 of this year’s budget, $2.8 billion is spent on capital.

With regard to the infrastructure -- the hospitals, the schools, the universities and the roads -- we are taxing now when times are good and we are going to build up the infrastructure, and is that not good? The government has increased it by 3.7 per cent, construction costs are up by about 10 per cent; so in real terms, by inflation and by the cost of construction, it has cut the amount that is going into capital.

Operating expenditure, the thing I am talking about that is out of control, is up by over nine per cent, that is $3 billion. So the government is up $3.1 billion -- $3 billion operating and $100 million capital.

Let me tell members where a lot of that $100 million is: Government Services, $190 million this year; last year, $107 million. That is pretty well $100 million. It is not quite, I appreciate that; but that is a large part of it.

Where is that money going with Government Services? That is going on out-of-control spending on building in my riding and in Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie. That is where Government Services is spending money. We are not opposed to the transfer of jobs, but construction costs somewhere around $100, $110 or $120 a square foot in Nipissing. The estimated cost of the building was $13 million when it was announced to house the Ministry of Correctional Services. We cannot get any answers now, but the rumours out of the ministry are that it is over double. We will now be close to $30 million. It will probably come in somewhere around $300 a square foot.

There is something wrong with the spending; there is no control. Why is there no control and why do I know the example in North Bay? Because the government did not go to tender. It did not tender it, so it has no control. It put it out to project-manage. It invited proposals and then picked one and said: “Yes, you manage it. We will cost-plus you through the whole thing.” That is not an efficient way to build a building. That is where the capital has gone.

A lot of the trades are in North Bay, we are doing all right out it; but if you blow double or triple the costs, I do not think it is the way people in North Bay want government money spent. I do not think it is the way the members want government money spent.

I mention that because sunsetting is one method to get after and look at what is happening on the spending, to try to control the spending of various programs of various ministries of the government. I mention as well that the minority report my caucus presented to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs before this budget came into place made a host of recommendations that would not have tied the Treasurer’s hands and would not have tied the government’s hands.

Some of them would have, I acknowledge that. We called for a balanced budget in two years without tax increases. The Treasurer looks as if he is going to do it in two years all right, I think. The only problem is he is going to tax $1.5 billion a year to put half a billion on the deficit. l guess we will have to wait to see what happens with the $500 million he says he is going to find in in-year constraints.

1020

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member want to reserve some of his time at the end?

Mr. Harris: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. Did you jump that ahead’? How is the time going so fast? I will try to save a minute.

I want to mention the minority report because we made a number of recommendations aimed at controlling expenditures and one of the recommendations we made was sunsetting. There will be a small cost involved in sunsetting, in having a committee do some review, but when the minister tells me that the ministry will have to spend some time and effort justifying the program, I cannot think of a better way to spend a few dollars.

I think in the long run the minister will save money. He will have an administration, a civil service, that says: “These guys are going to be watching what we do this year and next year. We are going to have to justify it. We are going to have to answer to them. So we had better be careful how we spend this money.” It will help in that way, and I think it will help in eliminating some programs that become redundant or no longer necessary or no longer appropriate for the times.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this resolution. I hope that all members will support the principle of sunsetting. There is nothing in this I am hung up on as to how it is implemented, save and except the mandatory part, that everything should go to a committee at some time. Let the politicians decide; not the government if it may be embarrassed, not the civil servants; let the politicians of this Legislature decide what will receive an in-depth review.

I will try to save my one minute if I can, Mr. Speaker, until the end.

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to thank the member for Nipissing for giving me the opportunity this morning to discuss his private member’s resolution, particularly after he brought to the attention of this House the delightful and effective budget that was delivered by the Treasurer yesterday, a budget which strengthens Ontario’s competitive position in the world economy and funds the government’s priorities for quality health care, excellence in education and more affordable housing.

Mr. Philip: What does this have to do with sunsetting?

Mr. Polsinelli: To answer the member for Etobicoke North, I believe --

Mr. Philip: Etobicoke-Rexdale. With all those petitions that have come from Etobicoke how could you forget?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Polsinelli: Just commenting on the member for Nipissing’s motion, I believe he dedicated well over half of his time to discussing the merits of yesterday’s budget. I say again it is a budget which projects strong economic growth of 8.9 per cent for the province, a budget which allocates major investments in social and economic infrastructure, a budget which has manufacturing and research and development incentives and a budget which allocates as the government’s strongest priorities our investment in health, education and housing.

We are not here today to discuss the merits of yesterday’s budget, but rather to discuss the merits of the member for Nipissing’s resolution, a resolution which, by the way, as the member for Nipissing quite aptly pointed out, requires that a new committee of the Legislature be established, a committee that would review all existing legislation dealing with direct expenditures, tax expenditures, a committee that would review every established agency of the government, every board and every commission.

Along with that, this new committee of the Legislature would also deal with future legislation in exactly the same way. Any new agency, new board or new commission which would be established would have to be reviewed by this new committee of the Legislature.

For the benefit of the members who may not know it, there are presently 248 scheduled agencies, boards and commissions within Ontario, and it may be of interest to some of the members to hear what some of these agencies do. Of these 248 agencies, 84 are advisory, 73 are operational and 91 are regulatory.

An advisory agency is one whose prime function is to provide information to the government that will assist in the development of policy or the ongoing delivery of programs. An operational agency -- and there are 73 of these -- is one whose main role is to provide goods and services needed to implement approved government policy and programs. The 91 regulatory agencies are those whose prime function is to control public or private sector operations as authorized by government legislation, exercise a licence review function or exercise an appeal function with respect to both government and third-party decisions.

The vast majority of Ontario’s agencies are assigned to schedule 1, which means that they generally must comply with the following conditions: they are funded out of the consolidated revenue fund or out of moneys collected from the public by means of levies; they are able to adhere to the management and administrative directives established by Management Board; they have their administrative support services provided by the responsible ministry unless the agency is of a sufficient size to enable it to provide its own support services; and they appoint staff under the Public Service Act.

These agencies, boards and commissions are found under the aegis of almost every ministry of the government. It should be noted, for example, that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Health each have 39 agencies, and members can understand the spread of the representation of these agencies. At the other end of the spectrum, for example, the office responsible for senior citizens’ affairs has one agency, that being the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

The member for Nipissing would have us believe that there is presently no process in place to review the operation of the agencies, boards and commissions. He would have us believe that there is no process in place to review the government’s commitment or allocation of tax expenditures. The reality of the situation, as the member for Nipissing should have known as a member of the previous government, was that, in March 1980, the government initiated a sunset review process for all advisory agencies existing at that time and for any agencies that were established thereafter.

As of May 1986, sunset review is required not only of the advisory agencies but also of any operational agencies not preparing corporate plans. In addition, it was recommended at that time that the mandate and indeed the need for regulatory agencies be reviewed wherever amendments to the agency’s constituting instrument, which was usually legislation, were being considered or undertaken.

The member for Nipissing quite aptly pointed out the purpose and the need for sunset review, and I agree with a lot of the comments he made in terms of the government or at least some body regularly reviewing the operations of the agencies, boards and commissions, and determining whether the programs they are delivering are effective programs, whether they are needed programs and whether, in fact, the programs should be continued, whether they should be changed and so on down the line. I agree with those comments.

But the question that the member is posing before us is whose responsibility it is for this sunset review operation, and I submit that while the Legislature has specific responsibilities in ensuring that the government runs, and criticizing the government and advising the government and dealing with particular pieces of legislation, it is primarily a governmental responsibility to ensure that the government’s agencies, boards and commissions operate smoothly, that they deliver effective and efficient programs and that there is still a need and they are operating effectively.

It should be noted that in the process of review that has been established by the government -- let me quote some figures -- there are 31 sunset reviews, for example, scheduled for the 1988-89 year and an additional 18 for the 1989-90 year. During the past two years, 18 sunset reviews have already occurred, and one agency, the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board, was terminated without a review.

Of the 18 reviews that occurred, 15 resulted in a decision to continue the agency and three resulted in a decision to terminate. Of the three agencies terminated, le Conseil des affaires francophones was replaced by the Ontario French Languages Services Commission; the functions of the Ontario Centre for Prevention of Child Abuse were divested to community-based transfer payment agencies; and the functions of the Ontario Manpower Commission were transferred to the Ministry of Skills Development, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ontario Manpower Commission.

The point is quite simply that this is a government responsibility and the government has undertaken that task. Management Board requires that agencies be reviewed on a regular basis. The ministry itself, under the direction of Management Board, is required to undertake a regular review of its agencies, boards and commissions.

If we talk about the responsibility members of the Legislature have in terms of this review, the member for Nipissing knows that there presently is a committee of the Legislature, the standing committee on government agencies, which has been known to undertake reviews of certain agencies, boards and commissions, particularly since its mandate requires it to do so.

I have had the pleasure of sitting in that committee of the Legislature when we were reviewing a number of the government agencies and making recommendations to the government, and there is nothing wrong with that committee. At its whim, at its direction, it can require any agency of the government to appear before it and answer its questions.

1030

A fact of that public review before the existing committee of the Legislature -- that is the standing committee on government agencies -- is that if the committee in its wisdom feels that the purpose of the committee should be discontinued, that the committee’s mandate should be changed, then it can do so; it can make a recommendation to government that this happen.

Quite frankly, I do not see the purpose of establishing a new committee that would be mandated and required to review all the existing 248 committees when an existing committee of the Legislature can presently perform that function, when an existing committee of the Legislature can presently require any agency or commission of government to appear before it and make recommendations to government. That committee does not have to do it, but it can do it and has a responsibility to do it.

I did want to deal with the issue of tax expenditures, but perhaps my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), who will be speaking for our party next on this issue, can deal with the issue of tax expenditures. I do want to point out in my last minute that there is a problem with staffing of the committees of the Legislature, a problem I am sure most committee members are aware of.

I recall quite vividly that during the recess of the House, when many of the standing committees were performing their functions, reviewing certain pieces of legislation that were referred to them and other matters referred to them by the House, some of the opposition members had trouble manning all the committees they were required to attend at the same time. Many times I remember seeing members of the opposition party fluctuating or floating from committee to committee in order to have some representation in committees.

I submit that if a committee of this Legislature were established which would require all the 248 agencies, boards and commissions of government to be reviewed, effectively the opposition parties would have a very difficult time manning that committee in order for it to fulfil its mandate. So I will not be supporting the motion.

Mr. Philip: I would like to start my remarks by dealing with the last point made by the member for Yorkview. If he would read the resolution carefully, there is nothing in this resolution that necessarily suggests a new committee has to be established. What we are seeing in parliamentary reform is a system of estimates committees being set up. When that is in fact established, there may well be time in other committees, or indeed in one other committee, to establish the kind of procedure that is talked about by my colleague the member for Nipissing.

In principle, I agree with what the motion is trying to do. I have argued for sunsetting provisions in numerous committees of the Legislature and asked several committees to look at the need for a systematic sunset function. I am concerned about this resolution because l think it tries to do too much. The resolution is too broad. It gives so extensive a task to a committee, and it could be a committee that is already established in this House, as to make it virtually impossible for it to do anything really well.

What I am suggesting is that while the principle is good, maybe we have to look at the practicalities and work with that principle to establish and do exactly what the member is trying to do in the resolution. First of all, if this resolution is implemented, it will impact on a number of committees.

The standing committee on public accounts, in a certain sense, as a result of the reports of the Provincial Auditor, is involved in sunsetting. We have seen examples of this where the Provincial Auditor reports that something is still functioning even though the objectives are no longer being met.

In the standing committee on regulations and private bills we are now looking at a report whereby we would systematically, one by one, in terms of agencies or ministries, look at the regulations, with the appropriate staff making recommendations, with the appropriate research, and in fact make recommendations to the House concerning regulations that are no longer appropriate.

I think the first task anyone who is concerned about sunsetting has to look at is the need for a proper indexing system so that we know what the rules are. In the regulations committee, that was a major concern of those people who appeared before us. In fact, people are governed by all kinds rules and regulations, for the most part made by public servants, not by members of the Legislature and not even by the executive arm of government. Often there are regulations that the ministers or indeed the deputy ministers may not know about.

The first task has to be to develop in this computerized age a proper indexing system so that people can say: “What really affects me? What really affects my business? What really affects my interests?”

The motion talks about sunsetting being spelled out in legislation. We have had that in some bills; some have worked and some have not. I think of some of the things that Mr. McMurtry introduced that did work. We did have proper review in some instances and we made some changes.

More recently, however, I think of the demolition bill by the Liberal government that was simply reintroduced, even though time and again members of this House pointed out how the bill was completely inadequate and left wide gaps open. But the government of this day decided to do nothing in terms of saving tenants from the fate of being out on the street because of people converting to condos.

The major problem I think we must address in sunset legislation is that if we are going to have a process it has to be objective and it has to try to remove itself from the political pressures.

An interesting article in the Administrative Review by Lewis Anthony Davis points out, “The burden of persuasion thus falls on program advocates to justify continuation, and program critics need not show why it should be terminated.”

I think we want to lessen that. What we want to say is that there should be clearly set objectives for programs, and there should be a process whereby one can see whether those objectives are being met efficiently, and if not report back to the House with recommendations for termination or alteration.

What we must understand is that parliament, whether we like it or not, through its reforms is gradually moving a certain amount of power and decision-making away from the executive and into the hands of parliamentarians and legislative committees. I think that has been a healthy move, because society is becoming so complex that unless we have parliamentarians who will specialize and take time to look at certain areas, we are simply going to have the public service running the show, with the ministers parroting out the work done for them by the public service.

I do not think that adopting the best of the congressional model is necessarily selling out the parliamentary system. In fact, I think it is simply a matter of living up to the 20th century, of living up to the complexities of a society like Ontario or like our federal government in Ottawa. It may not be necessary in Prince Edward Island, it may not be necessary in some of the smaller provinces, but I think it is necessary here.

I would love to talk about this at great length. I wish I had more than 10 minutes.

I think what we need is a committee that would look in a selective way, ministry by ministry or agency by agency, not taking on the whole world; not having an automatic inquiry which would be too large a project, but systematically looking at certain ministries in a post-audit way to find out whether the objectives are being met and making recommendations on whether certain programs should be changed, modified or cancelled.

We have to ask ourselves how this committee would function in terms of its interaction with the regulations committee, with the standing committee on public accounts and with the estimates committee that is being proposed. We also have to set up some fairly clear rules that say the programs should not be evaluated as to whether the objectives are right or wrong but rather as to whether the objectives are being met. If they are not being met, then why have the program in the first place?

1040

There are a number of criteria I suggest might be looked at. First, the requirement that programs articulate objectives, on the basis of which their performance will be judged; second, I think we should restrict the scope of review to determination of whether or not the individual programs have been achieved; third, we should incorporate the action-forcing mechanism, to provide an interim review of the extent to which the programs are meeting their objectives; fourth, we should allow the programs the opportunity either to correct their sins or face the possibility of being eliminated; last, I think the mandate of the decisions to continue, modify and terminate the programs must be based primarily on the results of the sunset reviews.

Such a committee would report back to the Legislature with the recommendations and then it would be up to the government of the day to decide whether or not to take the appropriate action to terminate or modify that particular agency or program.

I suggest to members that while the process I am advocating might be more modest than the one advocated by the resolution, I think it is more achievable. I think it puts in greater objectivity. I think it takes away from the possibility we have seen where they have tried sunset legislation, of certain politicians trying to protect their own interests or those of their constituents over the greater need or overall need of the province or the state as a whole and of the taxpayers as a whole. I think it would blend the better features of the congressional oversight sort of system with the parliamentary system and executive system that we have under our parliamentary system of democracy.

I think if we were to move modestly in that direction, we would stand a better possibility of achieving the objectives rather than going in the very broad, large and sweeping manner my colleague has recommended.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mr. Philip: I will vote for the resolution simply because I like the principle, but I certainly would like to see it go to committee for some changes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise to support the resolution of the member for Nipissing. I think it is time we considered such a resolution for the approximately 500 agencies, boards and commissions we have in this province to be more accountable.

It does not make sense to say we have not got the manpower to look into the commissions, agencies and boards to determine if, indeed, they still perform a function that is of value to this province. It is waste of money not to do so. We do not have to examine them all at once, but certainly over a period of years we could review them; as the member suggests every five years, certainly for the major ones.

I support the concept that a committee of this House could do that job quite nicely. We have such a committee and have had one in the past; I suppose we have had one for years. With a little more opportunity to devote specific time to these areas, I think we could achieve some positive results.

One of the problems we have to face is that, being imperfect legislators, we draft imperfect legislation. Shortly after legislation is drafted and comes to the attention of the public, we find where we have made errors. That legislation should and could well be changed. If we had a mechanism built into it, as the member for Nipissing suggests, that possibly at the end of five years it be reviewed, that would make a lot of sense. I suppose because it makes sense, some members of the House will not support it.

I am pleased to speak on this resolution because I had entertained the thought of introducing a resolution to do something of a similar nature, dealing with one specific board, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I had the opportunity this summer to sit on the standing committee on the Ombudsman and to review the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board’s action in two specific cases. At that time it was brought to our attention that there are a couple of major problems with that piece of legislation. The Ombudsman concurred with our thoughts on it. The chairman of the board concurred. It is my feeling the committee was unanimous in its decision that changes should be made to that particular mandated board.

I had personal involvement in a criminal injuries case that has brought me a great deal of difficulty. It is a tragic example, but I think it highlights the concern I have with this particular piece of legislation. A young man, a constituent approximately 25 years old, approached me a few years ago about a problem he had. Apparently a paroled convict moved back into society, into his parents’ home adjacent to this young man’s home. The young man had a wife and two little children; I think one was three and the other one year old.

Within a day of the paroled convict moving into his parents’ home, he went into the neighbour’s house, picked up a butcher knife and slashed the young woman to death. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board said the young man had suffered no injuries. Indeed, he was not even at home so he had not suffered any injuries in the sense of personal, physical injuries. He lost his wife, the mother of his children, but the board’s mandate says that he personally did not suffer any injuries. They said that if he needed psychiatric care, the board could compensate him for that. He was close to that point, but he did not require the psychiatric help. I do not think there are too many members in this Legislature who would not agree that this young man did suffer some injuries.

We cannot compensate someone for the loss of a loved one under this legislation; but there is a principle which applies for insurance. You buy insurance to protect your families in case of death. In this instance, society, in my mind, bears a great deal of responsibility for allowing this individual out. He was a menace to society and should never have been allowed out. Within a day, he committed murder. Society owes that young man something.

In my opinion, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board should be reviewed by a committee of this Legislature, with input from the Ombudsman, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and all the people involved. I know that there would be a lot of support for changing the legislation to allow the board to compensate people such as this. I will not even discuss the extent of the compensation, but there definitely should be some compensation.

There are a couple of other areas of that bill that need to be amended and changed. As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention, when my turn comes for private members’ hour, I think this fall, to introduce a resolution requesting that the House give consideration to making those changes or at least to setting up a committee that would review that piece of legislation. Having mentioned it now, maybe something will come about before fall. If not, I intend to follow that route.

I had an opportunity to glance at the list of the agencies, boards and commissions that are in existence today and we have several for which it is questionable if anyone knows what they are really doing. There is one I would like to bring to the attention of the House. It is the Soldiers’ Aid Commission. It was established in 1960 and I certainly think it was set up to serve a specific purpose. If it was, and indeed is serving a purpose, then we should know what that is. If it was beneficial in 1960, I would think that, with the increases in the inflation factor, whatever was deemed appropriate in 1960 would not be in 1988. After the budget of the Treasurer yesterday, everyone can understand that there are many more cost factors built into living in society today than in 1960.

1050

I would assume that it would be an obligation on the part of this government and the members of this Legislature to consider reviewing commissions such as this to determine if indeed they are serving the purpose for which they were set up and intended. If not, then maybe the money that is being spent in this type of commission would be better spent on some other program that would aid these same people.

I think to update anything that goes back 10, 15, 20, 30 years only makes common sense, and so I would appeal to the common sense of the members of this Legislature and vote to support the very reasonable and intelligent resolution presented by the member for Nipissing.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I would like to say initially that I appreciate the philosophy and the purpose behind this resolution. I think the concept is very admirable. I know there are examples as well in my own riding of corporate grants and other grants that are perhaps unnecessary, perhaps even wasted. I do not think we have anything in Kitchener as sordid as what was described concerning the building of the Ministry of Correctional Services in North Bay, but we certainly have some examples.

I cannot help but think, as I listen to the member for Nipissing, of his other hat. He is also the third party House leader. I cannot help but be aware that in the last five months he spent a great deal of time, unfortunately, as third party House leader trying to resist committee work for his caucus because of the fact that there were only 16 and now 17 members of that caucus. That is a reality, and when the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) indicates that we do not have manpower, it is not a good excuse. The manpower we do not have is in the opposition benches to man committees to do the work.

The member for Nipissing knows this, because, with another hat on, he has also served on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and he knows full well the time constraints that the finance committee has been working under because it has only two hours a week to sit. When we have asked for more time the time is not available, because there are not members from the third party to sit on the committee. Those are some basic problems that exist in trying to take every expenditure of the government, put it before a committee and suggest that that committee might give it a detailed review.

In place of that, his colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), I believe, was instrumental in bringing in the present sunsetting legislation, which brings these matters before the Management Board of Cabinet. Since 1986, the sunset review of Management Board has been a review not only of all advisory agencies but also of any operational agencies not preparing corporate plans.

“The mandate of and the need for regulatory agencies is to be reviewed whenever amendments to the agencies’ constituting instrument are being considered or undertaken. The review is to assure the government that the structure of the agency remains appropriate to perform its function and that this function is still something that should be done by the government. The rationale for sunset review is in this case not just termination. Any agency established with a short-term, clearly defined mandate should include a termination date which would then occur automatically, not requiring any formal sunset review documentation.”

As well as that, it is my understanding that the Provincial Auditor has very wide functions in this regard and can also do sunsetting investigations. During the past two years the Norm Sterling procedure, as the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) has indicated, has conducted some 18 sunset reviews, terminated three agencies and terminated one agency without even having a sunset review.

I would like to talk for a few minutes, if I may, about why I think this legislation in fact will not work and why it is not a good idea. Even though it may be good on paper, the fact of the matter is that when we have seen it done by legislative committees in other jurisdictions the bureaucracy still wins.

I am looking at a report on policy options which was done in 1986. It points out that, first, the fixed review date frequently becomes an excuse for delay. On a short schedule of, say five years -- this mentions a three-year schedule; five years would be better -- it seems either that the program has just been approved or else it is time to be resubmitted. Hence, desirable program modifications may be left to be reincorporated into the next round so that the agency can create its own reason for continuing to exist.

Second, the beneficiaries of the program are normally well aware that the program mandate is due to expire, and so they put off any good work that the program may be doing until the next time.

Third, it is just the case that weak programs, which may have a lot of administrative support and may have a lot of lobbyists who are in favour of them, get a lot of lobbying done to have the programs reinstituted while very good programs that are too busy doing the work do not have that happen.

Let us take a look at the experience in the United States, where they have tried this sort of thing in a number of states. I do not think they have had any real successes, unless you count the bullying timetable for the fast-track free trade deal.

A document by Professor Kenneth Meier at the University of Oklahoma points out that there are no major successes and that the process itself has shortcomings. The sunset process is expensive. The funds must be spent to analyse agency missions and their performance; which is bureaucratic, going on ad infinitum. For instance, in Colorado the first sunset review abolished three of 13 agencies reviewed. They saved $11,000, but the process itself cost $212,000.

The minor agencies affected in Colorado suggest that the sunset success impact may be trivial. At the federal level this has been true also. The sunset process appears to have had only minor impact on agencies too weak to defend themselves, and agencies which might otherwise be doing a very good job.

The whole concept of citizen participation in government is good. Many citizens are volunteering their services on these agencies, boards and commissions. They are not the ones who would be down here lobbying a committee to be continued, volunteering which in many cases would be overwhelmed by the vested interests that might want other committees to continue.

There are then, let us face it, false expectations about what sunsetting can do. It is not the ticket to small government; rather, it is just the opposite. They are time-consuming, time that Tory members do not now have to participate in various activities that committees should be doing. They do not increase public participation in the process. They do not encourage public reaction to vested interests, but just the opposite. For example, in a survey done in 35 states in the United States, 70 per cent of those states indicated that the average turnout for a public sunset hearing before a legislative committee was less than 25 people, and that in a country with nearly a quarter of a billion people; as you can imagine, they would usually be lobbyists.

I am indicating that the committee in those circumstances so often has inadequate information, not real information as to the agency’s performance. The Management Board, on the other hand, does have that sort of information; so does the Provincial Auditor, for that matter. I am asking members of the Legislature to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Harris: I will try to be very fast. I rounded numbers when I talked about the capital in this year’s budget. It is actually up $83 million. If you check the Ministry of Government Services’ it is up $83 million, exactly the same amount; so there is where the increase in capital is: to house more civil servants.

1100

Can I just try to answer a few of the questions? The member talks about staffing. The problem is not staffing, it is the priorities. If we take a committee on Sunday shopping and run it all over the province and then ignore it, that is a waste of time. If we take a committee and productively look at some of the expenditures, then l think the committee is doing some productive work.

The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) indicated his support for the principle and had some concerns about how it would be implemented. I appreciate that. It is a relatively vague resolution, but the one principle that is in here is that politicians will decide what will be reviewed in depth. To say that Management Board has all the facts, the member is telling me they are not prepared to share them with this Legislature, and that is an insult.

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

Mr. Carrothers moved resolution 21:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that cancer continues to be a major source of fatality in Ontario and recognizing the need for extensive research, diagnosis and treatment, the government of Ontario should support the development of a community-based cancer clinic network.

M. Carrothers: Merci, Monsieur le Président. C’est la première fois que je prends la parole dans cette Chambre, et j’aimerais profiter de l’occasion pour vous féliciter de votre nomination à l’office de vice-président.

I am very pleased that I am able to bring forward a resolution proposing a network of community cancer clinics during cancer month. I would also note that April is not only cancer month, but that 1988 is the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Cancer Society.

In those 50 years, we have come a very long way in the research, diagnosis and treatment of cancer. We have taken very strong strides towards combating what is still one of the leading causes of fatality in Ontario today.

In the 1940s, less than five years after the Canadian Cancer Society was founded, only one in five, or 20 per cent, of all patients with cancer could expect to live for more than five years. In the 1980s, we can expect that one in two or 50 per cent of all cancer patients will survive for five years. This shows what the dedication and expertise that is being brought to the battle against cancer can do.

Nevertheless, while significant gains have clearly been made in this regard, recent statistics outlining the incidence of cancer should cause grave concern among doctors, hospital administrators and ourselves here in this chamber as we all work together to establish policy in Ontario’s health sector.

It is expected that by 1995 the number of cancer patients in Ontario will double, and by the year 2001 one in three people within the province will be diagnosed with cancer during some portion of his or her lifetime. In terms of real numbers of cases, it is expected that in 1987, there will have been 38,100 people diagnosed as having cancer. In Ontario, approximately 18,700 individuals will have died of cancer in 1987.

More time and money have been expended on trying to understand and defeat cancer than have been spent on any other medical problem. As an example of the magnitude of the moneys expended, in the United States alone more than $1.4 billion are spent annually on research.

These efforts have paid off with an explosion of knowledge about all aspects of cancer. New methods of prevention, diagnosis and treatment have come to light, new medical subspecialties have grown up and a proliferation of technologies has arisen to translate this knowledge into improved treatment results. We must build upon our present system of cancer treatment in order to meet what has been described as virtually an epidemic of cancer.

At present, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute, which incorporates Princess Margaret Hospital, are mandated under the Cancer Act to conduct a program of research, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, which includes among other things: the establishment, maintenance and operation of research, diagnostic and treatment centres in general hospitals or elsewhere; the co-ordination of facilities for treatment; the adequate reporting of cases; and the recording and compilation of data.

To carry out this mandate, eight regional cancer centres have grown up with the support of the provincial government. These centres provide consultative services together with radio-therapy and chemotherapy treatments. Each of the centres operates peripheral clinics, which now number almost 30 around the province.

However, even with this elaborate structure for the treatment of cancer, only 50 per cent of the cancer cases in the province are handled through this system. The remainder are handled through local public hospitals and, therefore, are treated outside an organized cancer treatment system.

Though our local hospitals do a wonderful job treating these patients, the treatment of half of the cancer patients in the province outside a co-ordinated program, means that the optimum level of care for these patients may not always be available. Easy access, for example, to data on treatment methods may not always be in place and some of the expertise that may be available to larger centres may not always be available at the local level.

A proposal for a community-based, province-wide cancer clinic network will alleviate this problem. Such a network of clinics would see the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ontario Cancer Institute through the regional cancer centres co-operate with local hospitals in development of those community-based clinics.

These clinics would provide better cancer care delivered closer to home in a personalized environment, provide a framework within which new methods of treatment could be quickly adopted and existing methods adjusted. It would ensure accountability both fiscally and by outcome and control costs in the long term without sacrificing results.

The community cancer clinic proposal would use the facilities of the existing community-based hospitals and use the existing referral system from local doctors. The network would retain the local hospitals to provide beds, treatment rooms, certain nursing care, staff and doctors. In fact, the clinics would seek to use all of the various facilities which exist at present in our communities.

The fact that treatment for most cancers could be provided in the local hospitals is an immense boon to the patient. I have had the opportunity of visiting a community cancer clinic which is currently being operated at the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and have spoken to some of the patients being treated there. I have also spoken with patients in my own community about their experiences in receiving cancer treatment. I found the difference quite startling. It is the difference between spending two or three hours receiving chemotherapy at your neighbourhood hospital and spending a day or possibly even two travailing into a larger centre and receiving treatment at a much larger, more impersonal facility.

At the community-based clinic, I found a very relaxed atmosphere. Patients were chatting freely with the medical staff. They seemed almost at home. They knew who was treating them. They had the same people dealing with them every time they came in. It seemed to make what was a very difficult and stressful treatment, receiving chemotherapy, much easier on the patient. They also told me how much more convenient it was to be treated if they could just simply take two hours out of a day rather than taking two or three days out of a week to receive that treatment.

They talked about how it was when they were treated at the larger centres and mentioned the fact of wandering around in the halls, waiting for treatment and the long delays between various steps. When I speak of the impersonality of larger centres, it is not really to criticize them. We must recognize that it is in the nature of a large centre to be like that; though we have to recognize that modern medical technology now allows us to provide complicated treatments in the local hospital which previously had to be reserved for those larger regional centres.

I am told that the side-effects from treatment at the local clinic are fewer due to the fact that the patient is under less stress and strain when receiving treatment. They obviously have not had to spend those long hours travelling and there is less concern about how they would suffer when travelling back after receiving the chemotherapy treatment.

As well, the treatment at the local clinic may even be more successful than that at the larger centre; again, because they are under less stress and strain when receiving it. Certainly, the anecdotal evidence I saw seemed to imply that.

Shifting what one would consider routine treatments for routine cancers to the local clinics would free up the regional centres and the Princess Margaret Hospital to concentrate on more difficult cancer cases and to analyse the data which is becoming available on treatment of cancer and the data base which I will talk about, which can be created through these community clinics.

1110

One could envision a system where patients go to their local clinic for first diagnosis, maybe get referred to the regional centres for more difficult cases, and then return to the local clinic to receive their ongoing treatment and follow-up. In my view, this would result in a much better utilization of some very expensive medical resources.

The community clinics would also provide us with the opportunity to use the computer technology which is now available to us. A centralized computer chart-keeping system through the community cancer clinics on a province-wide basis would be able to carefully document and diagnose each case.

This province-wide data bank would have an immense value in the refinement, adjustment and improvement of methods of cancer treatment. It would enable health professionals in the local cancer clinics to carefully document diagnoses and have available to them a range of experience in the treatment of cancer they might not otherwise have or be able to amass at a local clinic if it were operating independently. They could adjust and refine treatment without referring the patient to the larger centres, saving the patient a great deal of stress and strain and better utilizing our very expensive medical resources. The outcome of treatments could be evaluated according to agreed-upon standards and new treatments could be tested and rapidly introduced and the less effective ones more easily phased out.

The structure would also allow the implementation of a province-wide cancer screening program or the introduction of other methods of cancer control, and the province-wide data could be used to identify regional trends in the incidence of cancer and allow that to be acted upon.

At present, I was surprised to find out that there is no province-wide database, or a very limited one, something which I found very surprising, and I would suggest that effective treatment of cancer requires that such a database be created and that the computer technology is now very easily available to allow us to do that. Even if we just do that, creating such a database, we would have taken a major step towards more effective cancer treatment in this province.

The location of the community clinics would depend on several considerations. First, all patients should have easy access to the most up-to-date treatment at an easy travel distance from their homes. Second, of course, the communities must be willing and capable of supporting the clinics through the provision of qualified medical oncologists, chemotherapists, associate doctors and the volunteers which are going to be necessary to man such a system.

One question we should certainly be asking ourselves before we give our support to this proposal is how this proposal fits into the existing Ministry of Health policies in this area.

The Ministry of Health, and more specifically the minister, has stressed the need for Ontario to develop more community-based systems for medical care. A system of community-based cancer clinics would be a major step to providing such care for cancer, and given the self-contained nature of these clinics, fiscal accountability for the treatment of cancer would be increased.

At present, hospitals outside the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation system -- and as I indicated earlier, almost half of the cancer patients currently being treated are outside this system -- receive funding for treatment through the provincial life support grants.

At present, there are approximately 65 hospitals providing some form of oncology treatment funded through this program and $25 million are spent annually in grants for this. When one considers that these grants also fund transplant patients and other chronic care patients, it is clear that we are not easily able to account to see whether those moneys are effectively spent.

Moreover, there is no province-wide audit system or review system to audit the medical impact of the various treatments or the cost-effectiveness of these grants. If one is concerned about the skyrocketing costs of health care, and I think we all are, a system of community cancer clinics such as the one being proposed makes very sound fiscal sense.

In summary, I feel that through a network of such community-based clinics, Ontarians can be assured of a uniformly high standard of care and cure which is both medically and fiscally accountable.

Treatment would be provided in an environment which is less disruptive to the everyday life of the patient.

The present funding of much community cancer care through a funding mechanism not designed for cancer treatment, in the face of what amounts to an epidemic of cancer, cannot be continued. If we do not expand the system of cancer treatment in a co-ordinated fashion it will expand to meet the demand which is obviously there, as has happened in the United States, and will expand in an unco-ordinated fashion, thereby producing possibly an uneven standard of care across the province at a cost which we really cannot afford.

I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution. When they vote, I would ask them to recall the statistics I mentioned earlier about the incidence of cancer and the growth of the incidence of cancer in our society.

With their help and the dedicated work provided by many members of the medical profession -- and I would like, Madam Speaker, to take a moment to acknowledge the presence in the members’ gallery of two doctors here who are working in such a system of community medical clinics. We have Dr. Hryniuk from McMaster University and Dr. J. Gowing from Cambridge Memorial Hospital -- with the help of such doctors and such a system of community clinics, we will be able to provide the best possible treatment in Ontario and keep this treatment within a cost that we can afford.

Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve the rest of the time remaining to me to respond to any matters which may come up during the debate. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member for Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the official opposition, it gives me some pleasure to support the motion of the member for Oakville South (Mr. Carrothers). I was very pleased when he made reference in his remarks to the situation in Cambridge and the facility we have in Cambridge with regard to the community cancer clinic. Indeed, I think he is quite correct that the model that exists in Cambridge is a model that could be well used throughout the province.

Cancer continues to be one of the major sources of illness and fatality in Ontario. Moreover, the incidence of cancer is increasing rapidly due to an ageing population and an increase in certain groups. An example would be women who smoke. Experts expect that the disease will have doubled in the total case load by the year 2001. That is a frightening statistic.

Certainly, this is not an optimistic scenario for the health of many Ontarians. Because of this projection it is important that the government take seriously and act upon the proposal being put forward by the honourable member.

The purpose of the bill is that the Ontario community cancer clinic network achieve its objective -- a proposal which seeks to establish research, diagnostic and treatment facilities in general hospitals, thereby bringing the provision of care to cancer patients.

It is a concept which has an objective to develop an adequate reporting system to increase research into cancer and its causes. It is a method by which the province ensures fiscal responsibility. The member has made reference to all of these facts.

I speak with some experience with this disease in my family -- and it is a family disease. It is also a long-term disease. My daughter was treated in Hamilton and I can remember the constant journeys back and forth, day after day, to Hamilton. I shall always be eternally grateful to the medical staff and the nurses for the treatment my daughter received. But I do concur with the member that it is a very stressful situation.

My wife, I remember, got the only speeding ticket of her long driving history as she was driving my daughter to Hamilton for her treatment. She had absolutely no idea that she was going over the speed limit and when the police officer pulled her in and told her the speed she was travelling at, she said: “I was just on my way to the hospital. I’ve got to get my daughter to the hospital.”

1120

That is just one example. I can identify too with the sitting-around, the waiting and the relief when eventually our turn came up for the treatment of my daughter. I can remember that it was different people we were dealing with -- all good people, sensitive people, very well-meaning people, and providing outstanding service; but very often, they were different people. Certainly, when my daughter was being treated within the hospital and was staying there, the staff then crystallized and there were personal relationships.

In Cambridge, my wife had a brain tumour operation two and a half years ago and has been treated by Dr. Gowing in the Cambridge facility, and there has been a phenomenal difference. Again, the treatment has been equally wonderful, from just as dedicated people, but it is much more personalized. It is closer to home; it is almost family. I want for the other citizens of Ontario the kind of personal treatment that my wife has had the opportunity to receive at Cambridge over the last two and a half years.

It is very important that the data be available in order that progress can be made. As more and more people are affected by the disease, we must put in the hands of our professionals the tools that equip them to treat the patients as effectively as possible.

I think the honourable member’s suggestion of the database, the use of computers and the integration of the knowledge from around the province to provide the best possible treatment is an investment in our health for the future and an investment that, given the statistics presented to us this morning, many members of this House may benefit by, if we indeed follow and put into practice the suggestion of the honourable member.

Convenience -- being close to home -- is important, but it is not just a matter of convenience. I think it is a matter of the personalizing of the treatment. You are being treated in your home community. You are being treated by the same doctor and the same nursing staff in a smaller environment. The stress level is reduced.

While we need the larger regional centres for perhaps more complicated cases, perhaps for the diagnoses, I think the model the honourable member suggested this morning is a good model, a model where initially there is local examination and perhaps treatment, perhaps intervention at the regional level and coming back to our local base for ongoing treatment.

I do believe honestly that the side-effects are reduced in a local situation. I do believe it is related to stress, and I do believe it is related to the relationship that exists between the patient and her treating physician. That relationship can only develop in a more personal situation.

I am, as I said already, extremely grateful to the doctors and staff both in the larger facilities, in the regional areas like Hamilton, and in the local clinics, as in Cambridge. I think the ideal is a combination of both. We cannot do without either. But the system will not be as effective and will not provide the most effective results unless we do in fact come back to the local base.

I not only encourage members to support this resolution, but I do hope that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will look upon this resolution when it is passed and will implement it speedily.

Mrs. Cunningham: Our party would like to speak in favour of this motion today. We also agree in principle, of course, with the resolution of the member for Oakville South, but we do have some implementation and operating concerns that we will express to the House at this time. I would like to start with some background, some facts, delineate our concerns and come up with some suggestions.

The foundation for the present system of cancer treatment was established between 1939 and 1945. The legislation to create the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation was passed on June 13, 1943, but the act could not be put into effect until 1946, because of the Second World War. The first cancer clinic, therefore, opened in the new wing of the Kingston General Hospital in March 1947 and became the model for six other treatment centres, which still exist, in Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Toronto and Windsor.

These seven centres represented a new concept in medical organization, and by combining research at the university level with clinical diagnosis and treatment, the foundation was able to unite into a common front the scientists, doctors and medical disciplines concerned with cancer.

Today these centres have become severely overcrowded, and staff have become severely overworked. In 1986, the ministry allocated $2 million for the complete rebuilding of the Princess Margaret Hospital and the redevelopment of the regional cancer treatment centres in London, Hamilton and Sudbury -- one, of course, which I am very familiar with.

While these funds are substantial and desperately needed, they do not cover the pressing problem of operating costs. The demand for operating costs for cancer treatment has steadily increased over the past 10 years, to the point where the world-class cancer care in the province is somewhat threatened. In fact, it is seriously threatened. Linear accelerators used in radiation therapy cost $1.5 million to install and several hundred thousand dollars a year to maintain and operate. Chemotherapy treatments alone cost the Ontario cancer control system almost $4.5 million annually in 1986.

Cancer is the second most common cause of death in Ontario. Between 1974 and 1984, the number of patients needing treatment for cancer increased by 37 per cent. In short, one in four Ontarians will develop some form of cancer before they reach the age of 74. To stay in the forefront of cancer medicine and meet its commitment to Ontarians, this province’s cancer control system requires the support of a people and government who accept the magnitude of cancer’s growing burden and who are willing to give this fearsome disease a high financial priority.

The Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation would like to have chemotherapy more widely available. The foundation would like to see doctors from smaller communities provide chemotherapy under the guidance of oncologists from the regional centres. For example, Huntsville would not be able to support a specialist but may have a doctor who is willing to provide the therapy under the guidance of an oncologist from the regional centre.

1130

The expansion of treatment and care services for cancer patients is a necessity. However, the establishment of extensive cancer research and diagnosis in every municipality in Ontario, as the member pointed out, would be very costly.

Presently, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation in Hamilton does have seven consultative and follow-up clinics in its zone of service. The London Regional Cancer Centre has nine such clinics. Toronto has six; Thunder Bay, three; and Ottawa, two. Windsor has one and Kingston has one. These outreach clinics enable patients to receive chemotherapy and follow-up care closer to home, and we support them.

Obviously, the distribution of these clinics is too sparse to provide adequate services to all Ontarians. This system of outreach clinics should be expanded to allow all cancer patients to receive chemotherapy and palliative care closer to home.

Ontario’s cancer control system needs to help re-establish, expand or develop fundamental treatment programs within the regional cancer centres: such things as proper psychosocial support and palliative care programs for patients trying to deal with the shock of having cancer, the stress of therapy or the realization that they will not recover from the disease.

As the director of the London Regional Cancer Centre wrote in the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation’s document entitled Cancer in Ontario 1986, “The greater emphasis on care (as opposed to cure) reflects a realistic appraisal of cancer treatment in the 1980s.”

Our party agrees with this assessment. In April 1986, we released our palliative care discussion paper. It was well received. Our party believes that we must now move towards creating a province-wide system of palliative care in Ontario. To work effectively, this kind of care must offer the patient and family a range of services from a variety of different sources.

In Ontario, loose networks of hospitals, clinics, doctors, specialist teams, nurses, homemakers and volunteers have developed to meet the need as best they can. The problem, of course, is that conflicting organizational mandates and scarce resources have made palliative care difficult to co-ordinate, finance and evaluate, particularly because we have not yet developed any overall policies or standards directing the provision and growth of palliative care in Ontario.

We believe that the Minister of Health must take a firm leadership role in establishing better linkages within the system and ensuring that there is co-ordination. The Ministry of Health should also work closely with district health councils, health care professionals and consumers in each region to develop an efficient network of palliative care services geared to meet each region’s projected needs.

Our party believes that the dying and their families should have a variety of choices, including palliative care in hospitals, in nursing homes and in their own homes. In addition, we believe there should be important services or roles for day hospital clinics, home nursing services and homemakers if we are to provide families with the support system they require. Currently, 95 per cent of all this palliative care is administered in hospitals. Only 40 of 220 hospitals in Ontario offered some form of care in 1986.

The Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal reported that in the first five years of its home care program it saved $276 per patient per day, or about $900,000, so we see this as a cost saving. They saved $250,000. The net saving to the system was about $650,000. A 1982 Department of Health and Welfare report estimated total savings of $700 million nationally if two out of every three cancer patients died in the home rather than in the hospital.

I think we have serious facts to be thinking about. The Ontario Hospital Association is concerned about the wish of the member for Oakville South to bring down the life-support grants from global grants to specific amounts to cover various different illnesses. We received this information in discussing this proposal with his staff. Separating cancer life-support grants from global life-support grants will not increase the funding for cancer treatment.

We are concerned. We hope that, in the implementation of this program, that will not be one of the suggestions he follows. Separating life-support grants would be budgeting by illness. It would become cumbersome, and if the hospital had used up all its proportion designated for cancer, would it have to turn away patients?

On the question of cost accountability, the ministry will be implementing a management information system, but not until April 1989. These standards enable various departments and services to be evaluated against industry norms, including workload measurements, cost control and resource utilization factors. This system will enable hospitals to become more accountable for all treatments, not just cancer treatments, and we applaud it. We just think it is going to take too long.

The Ontario Hospital Association has worked with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ministry of Health and the Hospital Medical Records Institute to develop comprehensive resource utilization guidelines. This is an innovative medical management practice that reflects the need to ensure that each hospital’s physical, staff and financial resources achieve the optimum balance between demand for services, the availability of resources and the wellbeing of patients. We hope the government will listen to the Ontario Hospital Association, as it, too, has looked at this problem.

In conclusion, we support the member for bringing forward this resolution.

Mr. Black: During the month of December, I had the opportunity to leave the activities that were taking place in this House to attend a most significant and emotional event in my home town. That event was particularly significant to me in that it took place in the high school I had attended as a student and where I had been a staff member and a principal for a number of years.

On that afternoon prior to Christmas, over 1,000 students, a staff of 60 people and a variety of other people from the community gathered together to recognize the contributions of Susan Mitchell to her fellow students at Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School. A number of us, including her fellow students and her principal, had the opportunity to pay a tribute to Susie Mitchell.

Susan was a girl who had been involved in student activities. She had been president of the Students Against Drunk Driving organization within her school. She had been involved in a great many activities during her career there. Most important of all, however, was not her involvement in activities but the kind of example she had set for her fellow students. She was a positive, enthusiastic and inspirational person.

The highlight of the afternoon was when the Lieutenant Governor of this province, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, stood beside Susan and presented to her an award as an Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year. Those of us who have had an opportunity to see the Lieutenant Governor take part in such ceremonies know the kind of dignity and grace he brings to occasions.

When Susan stood to respond, she stood only with the help of the Lieutenant Governor, because the tragedy of Susie Mitchell’s story is that many of her accomplishments in her school had been accomplished while she was suffering from inoperable brain cancer. The normal routine is that such awards are presented here in Toronto during the spring of the year. In Susan’s case, the decision was made to present the award in December because it was feared she might not be available to receive that recognition when it was normally presented.

Susan Mitchell died just a month ago, but the kind of example that she set for her fellow students and within her community will not die. Cancer is the leading cause of loss of potential years of life in this province, and we have a need for the Susan Mitchells to make the kinds of contribution in terms of leadership and in terms of inspiration that society needs. We can ill afford the heavy toll that cancer takes on the people who live in this province.

1140

Most distressing to all of us, I think, is the fact that cancer is not an old person’s disease. At one time, it was so considered. It is not a respecter either of age or sex. Women who smoke are among the most increasing new cases of cancer. Canadian males can anticipate a 30 per cent increase in cancer over the next 10-year period.

But it is not statistics alone that tell the story of cancer. There is another side to the cancer story. I think all members of this House have had some personal experience with cancer and the havoc it wreaks on family life and on the people we love.

I come from an area that is a small-town community not too distant from Toronto and when people from my riding need help with the treatment of cancer, they come to Toronto. We are, in a sense, among the fortunate people in that respect, in that the journey to Toronto is approximately two or two and a half hours for most people.

But to the cancer victim, whose life may already be shortened and whose days on this earth are numbered, even that amount of time is an increase in time that could be avoided and should be avoided.

Most important of all is that people go through a tremendous stress when they are being treated for cancer and the families that surround them go through the same kind of traumatic experience. That trauma, that stress, is only heightened by the need to travel to distant centres to receive the treatment that is necessary.

Let me be clear that what I say is not meant as a complaint. I had a brother who died two years ago after a year-long battle with cancer. His life was lengthened and his days were made more productive by the fact that he was able to receive treatment, but I watched the financial impact and the traumatic impact on him and his family as each month he journeyed to Toronto and spent two or three days recovering from the stress of that trip.

The community cancer clinic network has four objectives. Its aim is to provide better care closer to home for victims of cancer. It hopes to provide a framework, a framework that will incorporate all cancer treatment programs. It should provide both fiscal and effectiveness accountability. It should help to control costs but at the same time recognize that there is a need in this province for humane treatment for cancer.

There are other members who will welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. I would urge all members of this Legislature to support the resolution.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to address this resolution that has been put forward by the member for Oakville South.

It is a resolution which I think contains a great deal of merit because it does recognize the needs of people right across this province, particularly those in smaller communities who are more isolated from the medical treatment which is available in our major centres.

This resolution recognizes that cancer is a major source of fatality in Ontario and that we do need more extensive research, diagnosis and treatment facilities brought closer to everyone. In particular, I do support the development of a community-based cancer clinic network.

Unfortunately, to a large extent the emphasis in the current government is on creating major centres isolated away from those communities where we have so much need for this type of care.

I would hope that we could move towards a more decentralized approach to the treatment of this disease and other health concerns in this province. The concept of centralized care, available only in several major centres in the province, is not compatible with the objectives of a community-based, family-oriented caring society that we would all like to see emphasized and promoted here in Ontario.

Those concerns are particularly true in northern Ontario. Our communities are considerable distances from the major centres in the south and from each other across the north. I know that in my community, in particular, there have been very serious concerns expressed about the government’s spending on major cancer treatment facilities going into isolated single-location centres. In Sault Ste. Marie, the physicians involved with health care and, in particular, cancer treatment have expressed very serious concerns about the approach of putting all or virtually all the resources of the province in northern Ontario into one major centre in the city of Sudbury.

I have no objection to moving facilities and improving the facilities in the community of Sudbury and bringing services to the north which are not there today, but the suggestion that those services should become the centres to serve the other communities in northern Ontario does not make sense in the northern Ontario context in comparison with what it might, in terms of the closer accessibility between various communities in southern Ontario.

In Sault Ste. Marie, we are nearly 200 miles from Sudbury. The community of Thunder Bay is well over 500 miles from Sudbury and we have to ensure that while we do promote improved facilities in communities such as Sudbury we do not take away from the kind of local care that is needed in the other communities in that region.

We have had very serious concerns with this disease, a disease which afflicts so many families across our province. I think everyone has had experience with family members or close friends who have been afflicted with cancer. It is a serious concern and one in which the support of family, the opportunity to be either in one’s home or close to one’s own home, is essential in promoting the psychological wellbeing of the individual who may be afflicted with the disease as well as the family which wants to be so supportive. To do so, we have to ensure wherever possible that the services are available in the local community and that the doctors and the equipment are available in the local hospital.

In the Sault in recent months, we have had very serious headings like “Service to Cancer Patients in Algoma Said Faltering Seriously.” We have the doctors involved with cancer treatment expressing serious concerns about what this government is doing. I will read briefly from this article in the Sault Star: “Service to cancer patients in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district is faltering because of lack of funding and recognition from the Ontario Ministry of Health, Sault physicians say. The situation has become so critical that doctors have written to Ontario Health minister Elinor Caplan expressing their grave concerns. They ask the Health minister to give cancer care here her urgent consideration and request a meeting the discuss their concerns.”

This submission, supported unanimously by the Algoma West Academy of Medicine doctors, was presented to the minister. However, she has not been able to find the time to meet with the physicians themselves, individually. We are facing a situation where the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital’s six-bed oncology unit will be moved in about three years to the General Hospital under a plan for rationalization of special services. However, neither hospital has the physical or financial capability today to handle this overstrained unit.

We have the chief oncologist in the community of Sault Ste. Marie, the first oncologist to establish himself north of the city of Barrie, saying in a follow-up headline later in February, “Sault Gets ‘Crumbs’ For Cancer Treatment.”

We have a lot of concerns with the approach of this government to such a serious illness and I would hope that we would see some direct reaction from the Minister of Health to this proposal and this resolution, which I heartily support.

1150

I have had the opportunity to speak with the minister on several occasions about some of the health concerns of physicians and local residents in my community, in particular their concerns about treatment for cancer.

The people of our community -- and I am sure this reflects the opinions of people of all communities across this province -- want to have the opportunity to get full, proper treatment comparable to the treatment that is available in the major centres right at their homes, in their home community, in their local hospital, wherever that is at all possible.

I think we could move and should be moving, as a province, towards community-based cancer treatment and I would heartily ask the Minister of Health to look seriously at this resolution. I would expect we will get strong support from this Legislature on this resolution and look forward to action from the government in the days to come.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton -- I am just not sure, I do not think he will have the full 10 minutes -- for about three minutes.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, because this is the month of April, the month when the attention of the public is focused on cancer since it is Cancer Month, and second, because this is Volunteer Week, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I would like to thank each and every volunteer who this month is going out knocking on doors and holding events like the fashion show in my riding last weekend, in the community of North Gower, where 400 women raised $5,000 for the cancer clinic at Ottawa Civic Hospital. I would like to thank each and every one of those volunteers for their dedication and service to the fight against cancer.

I am particularly knowledgeable in some ways about this particular matter since my wife, Janet, is one of the 20 directors of the Ontario Cancer Society and has been involved with the Rideau-Osgoode Cancer Unit for 10 years. They have raised their contributions to the fight against cancer from $10,000 to well over $60,000 each year, and she and the people who are leading the fight against cancer can do that only with all of the help of these volunteers.

I think it should also be mentioned that it is quite appropriate this is brought forward by the member for Oakville South because, as many of the members of the former parliament know, the former member, Terrance O’Connor, had a fight with cancer and has beaten cancer through a great deal of help from our Ontario health care system. I know it is the wish of the proposer of this resolution that Terry continues in good health.

One thing does upset me about this particular resolution, and that is that the Minister of Health has stated repeatedly that it is a policy of the Liberal government to be involved with preventive health care measures. This Liberal government has done so precious little to deal with the prevention of cancer in this province that it is disgraceful. Only yesterday did they take some positive action with regard to the addiction to nicotine. They have let over 500,000 young smokers take up the addiction to nicotine over the past three years of the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Sterling: l only hope that they continue in this bent and do something for a change.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oakville South reserved about five and a half minutes. He may commence that five and a half minutes now.

Mr. Carrothers: I would like to thank all the members here who have indicated their support for this resolution. I would also like to note that I understand that the Ontario Medical Association will be debating a similar type of concept, I believe some time today. I can only hope that it is as supportive as this House obviously is.

I would like to reiterate that the creation of a province-wide system of clinics such as the one being proposed here really accomplishes two things, almost a win-win for the province. We will be making very sophisticated cancer treatment easily available to all of the citizens in an environment very close to their homes and in an environment very personally amenable to them, and it would be done in a fashion making use, to the maximum extent, of existing facilities and some of the very sophisticated communications technology available to us, so the incremental costs of such a proposal would not be that great.

We would be reserving the facilities at our centralized cancer clinics -- if you could call it that, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation -- for dealing with very unusual cases of cancer or some of the harder cases to treat, leaving the more routine to be dealt with in the local community and allowing the foundation to use its facilities for research. We would also be creating for it a database. I would like to underline again that I was very astonished to find that there is not a province-wide database on the results of cancer treatment available to the medical profession right now, and I think the creation of that and making it available to our cancer research centres would be a great boon and aid cancer treatment a great deal and make it much more effective in this province.

I would like to finish with the observation, as I indicated in my comments, that it would seem that almost half of cancer patients are now treated outside the organized system. There obviously is a need for the treatment; the need for the treatment is growing. If we do not create a province-wide system through which this treatment can be done in an organized fashion, making the best use of our resources, it will be done in an unorganized fashion and probably result in a situation where the treatment, as I indicated in my initial comments, could be uneven and also perhaps cost us more than we can really afford to devote or should be devoting to the treatment of cancer.

I would like to thank all the members who have indicated their support, and I hope all of the members today will support this resolution. Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: It is very close to 12 o’clock. The standing order does state that I should not call a vote until 12 unless there is some agreement in the House. Would it be agreed to proceed?

Agreed to.

1204

SUNSET REVIEW

The House divided on Mr. Harris’s motion of resolution 22, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Brandt, Cunningham, Epp, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Martel, McCague, Philip, Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Brown, Bryden, Callahan, Carrothers, Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Dietsch, Elliot, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, LeBourdais, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, McGuinty, Morin, Morin-Strom, Neumann, Nicholas, Offer, Owen, Pouliot, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Stoner, Sullivan, Swart, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Ayes 13; nays 38.

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Carrothers has moved resolution 21.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:05 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mr. Farnan: The people rejoiced with the coronation of their new emperor. Bright red bunting covered the countryside.

“My reign will be remembered for my honesty. The hallmark of my land will be open and accessible government. My people will have confidence in the fairness of my laws. These are the attributes; these are the clothes that I will wear.”

Alas, as time passed, the poor subjects were disappointed. They began to question: “How can the emperor be honest when he breaks most of his promises? If the emperor will not listen to us, how can he claim to have open and accessible government? Why does the emperor place heavy taxes on his lowly serfs while his rich friends go untaxed?”

Slowly, they pulled down the red bunting, and as the emperor paraded in their midst, silence prevailed. They remembered the clothes he said he would wear, but they could not see them. But the emperor was not bare. True, he was not clothed in the apparel of honesty, openness, accessibility and fairness.

The subjects hung their heads in sadness. For the emperor whom they had just crowned was arrayed in the trappings of dishonesty, arrogance, distance and injustice. “Shame,” cried the people. “We do not want an emperor with such bad taste in clothes.”

Mr. Runciman: In response to yesterday’s massive tax grab in the Ontario budget, I think the people of Ontario deserve to know some of the places their money is really going. It is going into the establishment of a rate-setting board for automobile insurance, which the Osborne report said would be ineffectual, costly and not needed. A cost of $5 million-plus per year will be directed towards this board, just to institutionalize higher increases in our automobile insurance premiums.

Also, the hard-earned money of every Ontarian is not going to new hospitals or schools, but to pay for more and more civil servants, such as those advertised for in today’s Globe and Mail: four new positions for the automobile insurance board at an average salary in excess of $44,000. These four civil servants will be joining the more than 5,200 civil servants hired by this government at an annual cost of more than $250 million.

Let us be clear. The tax grab of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is going to pay for waste in government, for unneeded and unwanted agencies and boards, and for a bureaucracy that is expanding year after year. Yesterday’s budget has prompted talk of a tax revolt. I think that is exactly what is going to happen in Ontario --

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

Mr. Runciman: -- for the people of this province are sick and tired of this government lining its pockets at our expense.

VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of this Legislature the invaluable contribution of the many people who volunteer in two separate programs in the city of Mississauga.

The first is Community Living Mississauga. There are approximately 300 volunteers who assist in a variety of programs, committees and fund-raisers. In fact, we will be honouring these individuals this evening at Community Living’s annual appreciation evening. The highest honour tonight is being awarded to Wally Harrigan, who will be receiving recognition for 20 years of volunteer service. It is the dedication and friendship of such people as Mr. Harrigan that make Community Living Mississauga the special organization it is.

One very important program available through Community Living is the one-on-one program. This program matches a volunteer with an intellectually handicapped person to assist in community integration. Together, they experience recreational activities, community groups and workshops as well as develop a very close and rewarding relationship.

The second example of community integration, albeit in a different area of volunteerism within the community, is the open house held last Sunday for a new group home to house former psychiatric patients in our community. This program, run by the Canadian Mental Health Association, has been a great success due to the efforts of professionals at CMHA working hand in glove with volunteers and local government in our community.

I would like to personally congratulate all involved in these two very worthwhile programs.

BUDGET

Mr. Mackenzie: The tragedy of large majority governments was underlined by the Ontario Liberal government’s budget tabled yesterday. First we had the large Mulroney majority federally and how it has cost the people in increased taxes, a threat to old age pensions and the free trade sellout of our very country.

Then comes the Peterson majority, and we have unkept election promises and now the biggest and most obscene budget ripoff of the taxpayers of Ontario in their history. The budget stabs the ordinary workers with huge losses of income through the unfair and regressive sales tax hike, more for gasoline, more for personal income tax and more on beer, wine and cigarettes.

That would not be so bad if there were offsets in fairer taxes, but these are minimal. Corporations pay no more and get additional tax breaks. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, for our growing older population. The people in Ontario have been had by the large Liberal majority in Ontario.

Oh, how we should remember even the recommendations of a committee of this Legislature that we should be moving towards fairer taxes in Ontario. This has not happened in the Nixon budget, and our predictions of across-the-board sales taxes were right on.

Mrs. Cunningham: During the by-election, there were two things the people of London North told me they did not want: Sunday shopping and a tax increase. Within a week of my taking my seat in this House, they got both of them.

Yesterday, the people of London North got the biggest tax increase in history. The budget talks about the economic growth in Ontario and then slaps the people most responsible for that success in the face. It says to them: “Thanks for the extra $250 million in retail sales tax last year, which we did not expect to get. Now just give us another $1 billion and we’ll call it even.”

The average family of four already pays $900 a year in retail tax and now will pay well over $1,000. The tax increase at this level of government is going to be passed down to the local government, to the school boards in this province. The Board of Education for the City of London will be asking for almost $170,000 more in local taxes, passed down to the local citizen. The government says it needs the extra revenue to cope with the problems of success.

That is what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) calls a “sweet headache.” With this budget, the government gets all that is sweet and all the taxpayers get is the headache.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Ms. Collins: I rise today to inform the House that I recently obtained copies of correspondence between Micron Ltd., a technical services company based in Hamilton, and Marland Environmental Systems, a water treatment and purification firm based in Virginia, which provide distressing confirmation of the negative consequences of the Canada-United States free trade agreement.

Late last year, the companies concerned explored the possibility of entering into a co-production arrangement, with Marland specifically interested in working with a Canadian company such as Micron in order to facilitate sales of its products to the Canadian navy. However, Marland ended these discussions because of the free trade agreement.

During talks with this American company, representatives of the Canadian navy expressed doubts whether, and I quote, “Canadian content will be as important as it was in the past.” Marland itself now says, “While we are still interested in considering co-production in other countries, we are not really geared up to do so except under pressing circumstances, which may not now exist in Canada.”

An important industry in Hamilton has lost a valuable contract because Brian Mulroney made a bad deal and failed to support indigenous Canadian technology, a position which contrasts markedly with the approach recommended by the report of the Premier’s Council.

Thanks for the free trade deal. We can all say bon voyage to Canadian jobs, jobs, jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. The member for Markham for 45 seconds.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) said at a school in York region in the latter part of March that the announcements of the capital allocations for the school boards would be out in early April. We are now at April 21 and we still do not have those announcements. We know there is some money set apart in the budget for schools, but we do not know how much is going to be allocated. Could they do it soon, so that some of our students will be out of portables by September?

This is something that is an ongoing annual problem and this government has not done its share in trying to address it and resolve it responsibly and quickly. We know the need is present. If you look at York region, Durham and Peel, there is just nothing happening in that. Our children are our most important resource. Is the minister saying they are not?

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

That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

1340

Mr. Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent to mark Israel Independence Day.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event which took place on this day 40 years ago, May 14, 1948: the establishment of the state of Israel.

Israel is a young nation with a history that reaches back through millennia. Nearly 3,000 years ago, its law proclaimed, “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee...and they shall judge the people in righteous judgement.” Since its establishment, the modern state of Israel has remained faithful to that fundamental principle of democracy.

It is a country of miracles, a country where the desert has been made to bloom, and one of the greatest miracles of that small nation is that the state of Israel has always been, and remains, a democracy. Born in tragedy and war, the universal greeting of its people is “Shalom,” which is peace.

To the members of the Israeli diplomatic corps present in the Speaker’s gallery, including Consul General Benjamin Abileah, and to all friends of Israel present today, may I, on behalf of the Premier, my colleagues and the government of Ontario, express our congratulations and our deepest wishes for peace.

I would like now to read the words of the commemorative plaque presented to the consul general by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips):

“Whereas the state of Israel achieved its independence on May 14, 1948, and

“Whereas during the past 40 years the citizens of Israel have created a modern democracy that has earned its place in the community of nations; and

“Whereas we join with the government and people of Israel in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the proclamation of Israel’s independence;

“Therefore, on behalf of the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Citizenship, we offer sincere congratulations on the achievements of the state of Israel.”

In the words of Theodor Herzl, “If you will it, it is no dream.” You have willed it and the dream has become a reality. Therefore, let me extend to our Jewish friends:

[Remarks in Hebrew]

Ms. Bryden: We in the official opposition join in saluting the state of Israel on its 40th anniversary on Israel Independence Day, which we celebrate today. Unfortunately, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), the leader of the official opposition, is not here today. He has a speaking engagement in Timmins, but he very much wanted to be here with all of us to celebrate this important milestone. He joins with all the members of the New Democratic Party caucus in this House to congratulate the state of Israel on achieving this anniversary.

The creation of the state of Israel is a miracle of our 20th century. It fulfilled a long-held dream for a homeland for the world’s scattered Jewish people. Against incredible odds, the people of Israel have built a modern state renowned for its economic, social and cultural achievements. It has led the way in many innovative social, educational and economic programs.

The people of Israel have also built a modern parliamentary democracy. It has universal suffrage, a multiparty system, free elections, a free press, free trade unions and an independent judiciary.

We in this parliament recognize the state of Israel as part of the worldwide democratic parliamentary system. As Social Democrats, we in the New Democratic Party feel kinship with the Social Democrats in Israel, who have played a very important role there.

But we salute all of the people who built the state of Israel over the past 40 years. We salute their vision and achievements. We assure them, and all the people in the gallery today who join us in this celebration, of our ongoing support for the state of Israel.

Mr. Cousens: Our party would like to join the Liberal Party and the former minister responsible for multicultural affairs, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), and the New Democratic Party in expressing our very good wishes to the people of Israel as they celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Last night I had the pleasure of sharing part of the celebration with my good friend the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). We were given an evening we will always remember.

It is a time of memories, as we remember the history that led to the creation of the state of Israel. As we all know, there will never be another Holocaust as long as there is an Israel.

It is a time to renew the great hopes for Israel that this country, with its strong democratic government, might continue to be a strength in the world. It is a time of happiness for all of us to celebrate their achievements, to celebrate their freedom, to celebrate the life of the Jewish nation.

Let us, here in the Legislature of Ontario, join in wishing Israel a happy birthday.

In the psalm of David, at the dedication of the temple, he said, “I will extol thee, O Lord, for Thou hast drawn me up and hast not let my foes rejoice over me.” May there be no foes over Israel. May we continue to rejoice with them on this, their 40th anniversary, and may we live many years to enjoy more happy birthdays in Israel. Thank you.

Mr. Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent to mark Armenian Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the significance of this day, which marks Armenian Memorial Day in Ontario.

On April 24, 1915, more than 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were forced from their homes, marched across a desert and slaughtered. Two thirds of the entire Armenian population perished between 1915 and 1917.

The survivors of this massacre sought refuge in countries around the world and a large number attempted to rebuild their lives in Ontario. Indeed, they have made an important contribution to our province and to our country.

This day of remembrance for those who have suffered makes us even more aware of the value of our democratic rights and freedoms. The Armenian genocide was a violation of inalienable human rights and decency. Through this memorial, we hope to preserve the ideals of individual liberty, freedom and opportunity that form the foundation of our society right here in Ontario.

Let us hope that by remembering these painful events we can learn from our past and work to fight injustice around the world.

1350

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the alternate sessions and parliaments of this House when David Warner is not the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, it falls to me, as the member for Scarborough West, to make our tributes to the Armenian community. I do so again today with a great sense of irony, given that this day of terrible tragedy, a genocide of 1.5 million people, falls on the same day as the happy anniversary of the state of Israel, after it also suffered an enormous Holocaust of its people.

I think it is important for us, as the Legislature, to remember that these incredible tragedies in human history have touched many nations and many peoples, some of which draw more attention than others. Even today in Armenia, there have been problems, and there are signs of some very imminent dangers to the capacity of that community, which still remains in that part of the world, in terms of racial actions taken against it.

It is good for us to know, as Canadians, that this has been a home of refuge for many Armenians, who are active members of our multicultural mosaic and who rightfully should call on all of us to remember their terrible tragedy on this date, the 73rd anniversary of the genocide.

Mr. Cousens: Our party would like to join with all members of the Legislature in remembering Armenian Memorial Day. It was in April 1979 that a former Progressive Conservative member, Osie Villeneuve, who was here when I first arrived and who passed away in 1983, moved a private member’s resolution in this Legislature, and it was passed unanimously, that the Legislative Assembly would proclaim this as a memorial day.

In the tradition of the Legislature, which is unanimous on many things, the honourable guests who are in the gallery may realize that on subjects such as this we can be together, but there will be other things that happen in this Legislature today where we do not share in the same kind of agreement.

Something happened in 1915 to the Armenian people. It was a tragic genocide, and it is important for all of us, as fellow human beings, to remember the horrors perpetrated on the Armenian people. It is important for us to share it not only among ourselves but with our children and our children’s children, so that we never take for granted our freedoms and never take for granted the value of human life.

I quote from Abbé Groulx in a statement of 1924 when he said: “History not only makes the bond with the past; it makes it also among the sons of the same race. It is history more than blood, I venture to say, which generates ethnic feeling and makes it vigorous.”

May the Armenian people continue to be proud, proud of their heritage, proud of what they have to offer to continue to make this a better place to live for all of us as they give of themselves in the whole environment, in the whole mosaic of what is Ontario. May they continue to give us something of themselves and something of their culture that we might benefit from them, and may we with them never forget the tragedies of the past but build from them so that in the future we will protect one another from such a travesty ever happening again in the history of mankind.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait grandement plaisir aujourd’hui de déposer en cette Chambre une loi sur le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario.

Since my government first announced its intention to establish such a fund, I have canvassed northerners, through the northern development councils, on what the fund should do and how it should be structured. Our aim in establishing the northern Ontario heritage fund reflects that consultation and gives northerners a financial mechanism that will help them to take control of their own economic destinies and see more of the wealth generated by the north resumed to the north.

In recognition of the need for a long-term commitment to the north, this government is pledging an initial commitment of $30 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund each year for the next 12 years.

Mr. Laughren: Why 12 years?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Is he jealous?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Statement.

An hon. member: We will renew it at the end of 12 years.

An hon. member: Review and renew.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: He will be retired, so what is he worried about?

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to continue the statement? Thank you.

Interjections.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Toi, énerve-toi pas, le gars de lac Nipigon là-bas.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that question period will start a little later. Minister, statement.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member should be back in the swamp.

Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir encore de continuer mon discours, puisque les gens des partis de l'opposition, on dirait qu’ils n’en veulent pas. Alors, je tiens à mettre ça dans le compte rendu de la Chambre, puisqu'ils ne veulent pas écouter; on dirait qu’ils sont sourds. Alors, je vais continuer.

Ce Fonds sera géré dans un compte séparé du fonds général du Trésor, ce qui est quelque chose de nouveau dans cette province. Pour mettre l’accent sur la manière dont nous allons gérer ça, je vais demander à une institution financière de nous aider pour qu’on reçoive le plus de revenue possible sur le Fonds lorsqu'il ne sera pas utilisé. Les intérêts et les fonds qui ne seront pas dépensés, seront gardés dans ce fonds-là pour l’année suivante, ce qui est nouveau dans cette province en ce qui concerne un fonds.

A board will be established and composed of northerners broadly representative of all facets of northern life: small and large business --

Mr. Runciman: Liberals.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will not do like Fednor; do not worry -- industry and labour, manufacturers and tourist operators, women, francophones and natives. Some of the members of the board will come from the NDCs too.

The board will be responsible for establishing specific criteria for the fund’s disbursement, but its broad mandate will include providing assistance to single-industry communities experiencing economic disruption from layoffs or shut-downs; assisting with the development of new technology, especially in the resource sector --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) should know that -- helping small businesses to get started or expand their operations --

Miss Martel: Speech.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Who is speaking at the back, Mr. Speaker? There is somebody speaking -- supporting special projects to promote the long-term growth and diversification of the northern Ontario economy.

Ce Fonds ne sera pas là pour remplacer les autres fonds. This fund will not be there to duplicate other funds. It will be there on top of the other funds or programs. The board will carefully review relevant existing programs of the provincial and federal governments to identify those areas in which its own strategic investments will be the most useful.

Il y aura des membres du Nouveau Parti démocratique et du Parti conservateur qui feront partie de ce comité-là. Cela, je vous l’assure, Monsieur le Président.

As some of my colleagues will be aware, the ministry’s highly regarded northern Ontario regional development program, which was slated to expire two years ago, was able to continue with a commitment from the northern development fund.

The goals of the Nordev program closely reflect one of the major aims of the northern Ontario heritage fund: to provide incentive funding to create jobs and start or expand small businesses in the north. Therefore, a portion of the fund will be used to support continuing private sector initiatives under the Nordev program.

This program is being reviewed, and it will be up to the board to decide if this program should not exist any more.

Pour faire la revue de ce programme-là, je tiens à rappeler que c’est un programme à long terme, pour douze ans.

It is a financial commitment of new moneys: $30 million per year; $360 million in total. It will be administered by a board made up of a cross-section of northerners -- NDPers, Conservatives, independents and Liberals.

1400

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mostly Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Wait till the end.

The corporation will keep its fund in its own account separate from the province’s consolidated revenue fund.

All unspent funds in any one year will remain in the fund and will be carried over for use by the corporation in future years. The corporation has the authority to invest any funds not needed in the short term, and the interest earned will revert to the corporation’s account.

When this government was elected, we made northern development a high priority. That fact is well known and our accomplishments are many. We will be relocating some 1,600 civil service positions to the north and have accelerated spending on roads and a range of public sector building projects. We have invested in natural resources, tourism, education and culture and communications .

We have listened to northerners, and through the northern development councils and the major conferences in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, this government has given northerners their say.

Like these previous initiatives, the northern Ontario heritage fund fulfils one of the Rosehart report’s major recommendations.

I would ask my colleagues from all three parties to stop these petitions and pass this law this afternoon or tomorrow, and the fund will be implemented tomorrow or Monday. They have nothing to say.

Mr. Villeneuve: Why not Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Sunday. Same thing with me.

I join in welcoming this historic initiative and helping to ensure its successful implementation.

LA SEMAINE DU BÉNÉVOLAT VOLUNTEER WEEK

L’hon. M. Ramsay: Monsieur le Président, au nom du personnel du ministère des Services correctionnels et des personnel associées, cela me fait un grand plaisir de me joindre à mes confrères ministres pour marquer la Semaine du bénévolat en Ontario et dans les diverses régions du Canada et des États-Unis.

I am also pleased to introduce today Ed Matthews, who is in the east members’ gallery, from Mississauga West, and also Christopher Columbus from Muskoka-Georgian Bay. They are among 15 volunteers who have been chosen to receive a very distinguished service award from the ministry tonight. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming.

Volunteer Week was first established in the early 1970s as a way for the people of Ontario to recognize the outstanding contribution made by individuals in the community who give their time and talent freely for the benefit of all society. Volunteer Week has also come to be a time when we promote the concept of volunteer service to the community.

Anyone involved in volunteer programs knows that volunteering really is good for everyone, not only for the direct recipients of services, but also from a cost-avoidance standpoint. In just about all areas of social service in Ontario, volunteers are filling in gaps and strengthening services, often in a personal way that just cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

Not least of all, the volunteers themselves benefit, often deriving improved self-confidence and self-esteem from their involvement. Volunteering is truly a dynamic force in our society, a force that is really good for everyone.

I would like to pay a special tribute today to our volunteers in corrections, a very special breed in my view. They come into contact with people who are at a low point in their lives, those who have known rejection and abuse and those who have committed irresponsible and sometimes despicable acts. Yet in the face of this, they come to show optimism, caring and compassion without judgement.

There are nearly 5,000 volunteers working in correctional services right now. They come into all our 50 correctional institutes throughout the province and into our 110 probation offices throughout Ontario. They offer help, guidance and friendship to thousands of offenders each week. They come to us as literacy tutors, arts and crafts instructors, pastoral counsellors, discussion leaders and often simply as friendly visitors. Their generosity and enthusiasm is an invaluable example to all of us.

I believe that volunteers throughout the province, and particularly those who work in the area of correctional services, are deserving of our utmost praise and respect during Volunteer Week 1988.

RESPONSES

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, en réponse à la déclaration faite par le ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine), j’aimerais attirer votre attention sur le fait suivant. Traditionnellement, les coutumes de la Chambre demandaient que les critiques des partis respectifs reçoivent une copie exacte du texte qui sera présenté. Certains diront que ce n'était que le décorum ou les bonnes manières qui dictaient cela, mais néanmoins, il est assez difficile d’évoluer à partir d’un texte dans au moins deux langues.

Had the minister’s statement concerning the northern Ontario heritage fund been made some 15 or 20 years ago, it would have been cause for cautious celebration. After yesterday -- another reminder -- after the way our pockets have been picked yesterday through increases in taxes, personal income tax and gasoline tax, which will affect people of the north more so than anywhere else in the province, and the sales tax, where the cost of living is already higher, it is obvious that this government continues to take more money out of the north than it puts in. So much for their social conscience.

The export tax on softwood lumber, which was announced with great fanfare last year, has yet to generate five cents of compensation. It has been an export tax from the north to the south.

The minister tells us today that from now on the northern Ontario heritage fund will be indeed cast in stone. He says it will be $30 million a year over a period of 12 years. On May 20, 1987, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) announced in his budget statement that $30 million was to be spent in the fiscal year. As I read this statement, we know that the $30 million of last year becomes the $30 million of this year and that he has no intentions of spending what he should do, $60 million, to get this show on the road. It borders on political fraud.

He does not mean what he says because I was here last year and I heard the Treasurer say; “I am going to get $30 million for the people of the north.” I was here yesterday when the same $30 million reappears. Even Houdini could not have it both ways. The minister has lost his credibility.

I wish to end on a positive note. Let us hope the government, even with the $30 million, will recognize the need to plan for the future so that the people who have a little less in this province -- and they may be the future of Ontario, the people of the north -- can at long last look to the future with confidence. The money is most welcome, but just as important is the planning so that we know five or six years down the line what we can expect from other Ontarians collectively.

VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr. Farnan: In response to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay), I would like to point out, for example, that the minister is actually underestimating the contribution of volunteers. He talks about filling in gaps and strengthening services. The reality of the matter is that in many instances the volunteers are the program.

This minister, this ministry and this government must understand that volunteers are meant to complement programs; they are not meant to substitute for programs. We must be very grateful for these people, as the minister points out, who are working with people who are at an all-time low point in their lives, and no wonder that they are at an all-time low.

I have been in facilities where it is a disgrace about the libraries, and in some facilities where the volunteers are the only program. Particularly in institutes for women, there is either outmoded equipment or nonexistent programs. We welcome the volunteers.

This party recognizes the contribution of volunteers. Volunteers are vital and important, but this ministry and this government must never forget there must be real programs. The job is not being done at the moment and we have to see more in that direction. Then the volunteers can be more effective.

1410

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Harris: I too want to comment on the budget announcement made today by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine). I too was a little shocked when reading through yesterday’s budget to see in the tax grab after tax grab after tax grab that was brought forward by the Treasurer and the impact that those tax grabs have on northern Ontario over southern Ontario. I pointed out that the only tax grab that came in that does not hurt us more in the north is the income tax because we do not earn as much money as the people in the south.

Having said that, I thought there might be something put back in to compensate northern Ontario, so I started to look through a little more of the fine print. What did I see? I saw the money that came from general revenues to support municipalities near the Hemlo gold mine will now be taxed out of those companies in northern Ontario. It will no longer come from general revenues; it will now come taxed out of the north.

I also saw a change in the write-offs for depreciation for resource companies that will take another $7 million a year out of northern Ontario. I thought there must be something somewhere coming back in. Then I read about the northern Ontario heritage fund. I cannot understand how this government thought that we would be excited by flat-lining, by saying that for the next 12 years there will be no increase in what it gave last year or promised to give.

The Liberal government has been the master of the five-year program and the 10-year program to make it sound big. Now they are trying the 12-year program to make it sound bigger. What they have done is flat-line the amount of money allocated for the northern Ontario heritage fund, and the people of northern Ontario are not buying it.

I thought that was it, but today what do I find in this announcement? The northern Ontario regional development program money, $20 million per year that was allocated for Nordev by the former government, started by the former government, the only good program they ever talk about that they have up there -- they say here what a wonderful program Nordev is -- now the government says that a portion of the heritage fund will be used to support continuing private sector initiatives under the Nordev program. That means to me that they are going to cut out the $20 million, turn Nordev over there, and the $30 million will have to replace that first.

It sounds to me like flat-lining at $10 million per year is what we are going to see in northern Ontario, as opposed to last year’s promise of $30 million per year. When we get into the reality of this, it was proposed that Nordev be put in there by these councils. That is the biggest Liberal patronage council system I ever saw set up in northern Ontario. We will be watching very closely as they put in this new level of bureaucracy to take over a very successful Nordev program. Now they are going to take it away from the independent civil service that has been administering it and give it to a new bureaucracy of this council that they are going to set up. We will be watching to see how many Liberal hacks come from northern Ontario on that.

Of course we support the principle. But where is the $30 million from last year? Now it looks like we are getting $10 million a year for the next 12 years.

VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr. Cousens: Every week is Volunteer Week in the Ministry of Correctional Services. I join in thanking those volunteers who do so much to help make Correctional Services work and to help those who are there. We also have to remember that what they are doing is an ongoing source of strength to the whole system and to those who are housed by the ministry. We should not do it once a week. There should be ongoing ways of reinforcing our gratitude.

The ministry has a way of making these announcements when other people are doing things. There are certain things that the ministry could be doing. When we start looking at what did not happen in the budget yesterday for eastern Ontario, I wonder what is really happening with this government in the young offenders facilities. We announced the Brockville secure facility a number of years ago and there has been nothing further developed on it. I know they can do all these thank-yous for people, but the ministry has to be doing something to support the people who are in those houses. I wish it would live up to those commitments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

[Applause]

Mr. Laughren: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr. Laughren: My question is to the Treasurer about the most regressive, obnoxious and obscene tax grab in Canadian history.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Other than that, it was OK.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Well, let my friend defend it to his constituents. Let him try to defend that to his constituents.

Budgetary revenues in the province are expected to increase this next year by about $4 billion -- $3 8 billion, to be exact, according to the Treasurer’s own figures -- and even with tax credits to low-income taxpayers, families earning as much as $10,000 below the poverty level are still going to be paying provincial income taxes to the Treasurer.

Given the fact that those revenues are going to be up almost $4 billion next year, why does the Treasurer keep pretending that he would like to do more for low-income people in Ontario but cannot do it? Will he make a commitment that he will stop shedding crocodile tears and admit he is sticking it to poor people in the province?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member would be aware, having studied the budget carefully, as I know he would, that under the Ontario tax reduction program last year, about 660,000 of our low-income residents in Ontario either paid no provincial tax or had substantially reduced tax. This number has been increased by this budget to 810,000, and it is interesting as well, I think, that of these people, 350,000 who are tax filers paying tax to Ottawa, pay no tax under the personal income tax to the Treasury of the province.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps at some point the Treasurer could tell us what that has to do with the fact that people earning $10,000 below the poverty line will still pay provincial income taxes.

I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us, since he is not prepared to dip into the overall $4-billion fund to relieve pressure on low-income people, how he rationalizes the fact that with almost $1 billion in revenue coming in from the sales tax alone, the most regressive of all possible taxes, he could not afford $100 million -- which we estimate is the cost, and I do not think the Treasurer will disagree with this -- out of that $900 million and some, to relieve people below the poverty level from paying Ontario income tax.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows from my previous answer that we have already expanded the number who are substantially exempt from personal income tax. Since there were some interjections, and I am not sure whether from the NDP or the Progressive Conservative Party, about the retail sales tax, I think he would be aware, having studied the budget, that over $400 million has been allocated to reducing the impact of sales tax on lower-income individuals and families. We put that range at approximately $25,000 a year and below, and we feel that is the correct way to focus and concentrate the assistance for the payment of that particular tax.

Mr. Laughren: It is still a fact that a family of four earning $23,000 in Ontario is classified at the poverty level and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) insisted those people continue to pay provincial income taxes. I wonder if I could put this in a little different perspective for the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question, I hope.

Mr. Laughren: By way of question: The Treasurer will know that there are many profitable corporations in Ontario that to this day pay no corporate income tax -- absolutely none. We have given him a list of those. If I could use the Toronto Stock Exchange as an example, because it is a nonprofit corporation, it never has paid any corporate income tax and it never will, as long as it retains that status.

Could the Treasurer tell us how he explains a perverse tax system or tax policy which allows the central nervous system of capitalism in Canada to avoid paying any taxes, while people below the poverty level continue to pay taxes?

1420

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member describes the Toronto Stock Exchange as sort of the Fort Knox of Ontario. In many respects, as the marketplace for securities that are traded on a regular basis, it is one of the senior ones in the world. The fact remains that it is nonprofit. Since there is no profit, there is no tax payable.

Mr. Laughren: It made $6 million in 1986. The Treasurer may think that is not much.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: They did make $6 million in 1986.

Mr. Speaker: To the same minister?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, to the same minister. We know now that the Treasurer has clearly staked out his turf and that he is going to stick it to the low-income earners in Ontario.

My next question has to do with the problem faced by middle-income earners in Ontario. Yesterday the Treasurer’s officials told us that a family of four in Ontario earning $40,000 a year, which is hardly a luxurious income these days, will pay more taxes next year, under his budget, than they would have paid before this budget.

As a matter of fact, the federal tax reform would have reduced the tax they pay. He has made sure that those middle-income people now will pay more. At the same time, if that family of four had an income of $90,000, they would pay less income tax under the Treasurer’s system, because that surtax he talks about at $85,000 does not kick in the way he said it would.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Laughren: As the Treasurer is sticking it to the low-income people and to the middle-income people, where does tax reform begin?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member has indicated that the savings which were accruing to the taxpayers in Ontario from federal tax reform were all taken away. I think he knows that is an exaggeration. If we had not adjusted the personal income tax rates, our revenues from personal income tax in this province alone would have been down by about $510 million. In the adjustment of the rates which were in the budget tabled yesterday, we have still left in the pockets of the provincial income taxpayers -- that is, to the province -- about $239 million.

I would like to have left more, but we have the responsibility to pay our bills in the province as well, and it was my judgement as Treasurer to recommend to the House that we leave those almost $220 million in the pockets of the taxpayers and at the same time tax the amount I have referred to in support of our own programs.

Mr. Laughren: I think I am starting to understand the Treasurer’s concept of tax reform. Low-income people are getting no relief under his budget. Middle-income people are going to be paying more under his budget. Wealthy people will pay less, and he has given almost $200 million to the corporate sector in the form of tax breaks of one kind or another. And guess who pays for all this? It is the middle-income earners in Ontario. My simple question is: When is he going to stop sticking it to them too?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Just as soon as I stop beating -- no, no, that is another one. I would say that the honourable member would be aware, and I do not want to repeat needlessly, that the tax reduction program is as we have already described it. To add fairness and justice to the system, although perhaps not enough to satisfy the insatiable member, we have put a 10 per cent surtax on high incomes, just slightly above his own income, where he does not have to pay the surtax, although maybe I should reconsider that.

The other matter which concerns me is his reference to the fact that corporations are getting off scot-free. If he would look at the compendium in the budget he would see that, in fact, corporations pay a larger share of the total tax revenue this year than they did last year. The part that is going down is the contribution from the government of Canada, and it is a matter of concern for me.

I know the federal government has budgetary problems as well, but it is factual, when you see the distribution of the revenue responsibilities, that corporate responsibilities measured by numbers of dollars and per cent go forward; it is the contribution from the federal government that is going down.

Mr. Laughren: If the corporate sector is continuing to pay the same proportion of revenues, it is only because its earnings are up substantially. That is why, not because it is paying a higher rate. There was absolutely no increase in the rate for the corporate sector.

The Treasurer should know that it was not just income taxes that were raised for middle-income people in yesterday’s budget; it was also gasoline taxes, liquor taxes, tobacco taxes and sales taxes. When you add all those together -- the sales taxes, plus those taxes, plus the income taxes -- it is going to cost that average $40,000-a-year family about $400 more next year. The Treasurer knows that those families spend a lot higher proportion of their income on purchases than do wealthier people in Ontario.

My final plea to the Treasurer is, does he not think he has done enough already to the middle class in this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In answer to another sort of rhetorical question, I am not sure that I have done enough for the people in general, but for the middle classes, which he is singling out and in which he probably places himself and his family, as I place myself and my family --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Come on.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, there you are -- we are improving the quality, availability and accessibility of one of the best education systems anywhere. We are improving our hospital services. We are building better roads. We are providing additional opportunities for young people to equip themselves in the competitive world of the future. We are developing the north. We are improving the quality of our environment. That is just the beginning of a list of services and programs that are designed to make life better in this province.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: My question, as well, is to the Treasurer, and it is with respect to that historic document that he brought in yesterday which in fact provided the people of Ontario with the largest tax hike in the history of this province in terms of cumulative dollars. As the Treasurer will realize, over the last five years this province has really enjoyed unprecedented growth, going back two years before his government came to office.

In the three-year period since he has been the Treasurer, his cumulative increases in revenue have totalled $29 billion. Recognizing that he has had $29 billion in additional cash to fund the programs that this province needed, can he tell the people of this province why he would need to increase taxes in this budget by $1.3 billion? What is the justification for that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member should think less in terms of an unwarranted tax grab and more in terms of a substantial investment in the future of this jurisdiction.

The honourable member referred to the largest tax increase in the history of the province. I think he would recall that when our mutual friend Frank Miller was Treasurer in 1981, he undertook a substantial expansion of the revenue base, which is a more moderate way of putting that. Compared with the domestic product of the province at the time, it was actually 0.75 per cent of the whole domestic product. The change announced yesterday was a mere half of one per cent.

When viewed in those objective terms, there is no way that the honourable member could be supported by thinking, realistic citizens in his description of anything like an unprecedented tax grab, because it certainly is not.

Mr. Brandt: Let me repeat, so there shall be no mistake on the other side, this is a historic, unprecedented tax grab, the largest in the history of Ontario. That is what it amounts to, and let there be no mistake about that. He can fudge the figures all he wants over there, the reality is that the gross numbers are higher in his budget than in any other budget by any other Treasurer.

1430

In that the Treasurer, kind-hearted soul that he is, has set aside money which, to use his terms and to use the language of the Treasurer, is “an investment in the future of the province of Ontario,” might I ask the Treasurer, since he has all of these additional revenues which he is going to extricate from the pockets of the little taxpayers right across this province, since he has these revenues now in his hot little hands, why is it that on a year-to-year comparison in that capital which he is investing in Ontario, his capital funding has gone up the sum total of $83 million? Does he call that an investment in Ontario’s future when he has taken $1.3 billion?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is strange that the honourable member, who is knowledgeable in these matters and had responsibilities as a minister of the crown, would try to persuade the members of this House that 1981 dollars are equivalent to 1988 dollars. If he had any semblance of reasonableness and wanted to convert those numbers to constant dollars, he would realize that even in absolute terms, this indication of tax base broadening yesterday, amounting to about $950 million in this fiscal year, would have to be about $1.1 billion, to be compared with Mr. Miller’s initiative, in constant dollars.

So that the people of the province who will be observing this exchange would not be unnecessarily led into making incorrect conclusions, I thought I would like to correct that matter.

Mr. Brandt: Since the Treasurer wants to correct that, let me just assure him that we will be using the same logic and remind him of that speech when my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) reminds the member from the north about the $30-million per year heritage fund which is set over 12 years and which he is now bragging about is going to be some $360 million. That too will be in discounted dollars when those amounts come through, so we will be talking to him about those and that particular set of logic as well.

My final question to the Treasurer is, if in a year of unprecedented growth, when the provincial economy is expanding and when he has had $29 billion in additional revenues over the last three years, he can work with that in order to pay for these programs; if at this time he cannot give the people of Ontario a tax cut, when then can the people of this province anticipate receiving some tax relief from his government?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member began his questions with reference to the constituency of Nipissing. You would be aware, sir, that in the last three years Nipissing, probably more than any other constituency in Ontario, has been the recipient of a good deal of the initiative of this government; that we have opened a new courthouse there; that there is a new head office of the railway; that there is a planned four-laning of the highway going into the city of North Bay for the convenience of the taxpaying residents, including his honourable colleague; and that, most important of all, we are locating the head office of one of the principal ministries of government right in the constituency of Nipissing. We play no political favourites. We felt that was a good location for that sort of investment.

When the honourable leader of the third party refers to high taxes, he would also be aware that we have another kind of responsibility, and that is a responsibility associated with the deficit. When we took office three years ago, the honourable member would know, the cash requirements were $2.2 billion but in fact the budgetary deficit was a billion more than that: $3.2 billion. As a result of this budget, we have reduced the cash requirements to below $500 million, and I am very proud of that accomplishment.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Harris: I, too, have a question for the Treasurer. I thank him for complimenting the member for Nipissing for making sure Nipissing gets its share of massive government spending.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Do not complain that we are not spending enough money in the north.

Mr. Harris: It is how you spend money.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You don’t want a courthouse? You don’t want a highway?

Mr. Harris: The government is spending wrongly in Nipissing. The building is now double the estimate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you asking whether the Treasurer agrees with you on that?

Mr. Harris: No. As soon as you can control the House, sir, I will ask a question. Under control now? Thank you.

The Treasurer says a special levy -- that means tax -- of three cents a litre has been imposed on leaded gasoline “to reinforce the government’s commitment to environmental protection.” While we understand their need to reinforce and prop up their lagging commitment in the area of the environment, it is obvious that this tax grab has nothing to do with the environment. If the Treasurer is really serious about the environment, he would encourage the use of unleaded gasoline by making it more affordable. Why does he not make it more affordable so that he can prove to the people that it is not just a tax grab for more money?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps two things: the honourable member would be aware that the government of Canada has decreed that leaded gas will go out of utilization in this country by 1992, so the people who are using leaded gas will not have that as an alternative in the reasonably near future.

We felt it was an appropriate environmental initiative to equalize the price between ordinary unleaded gas and leaded gas, with the understanding that the revenues from that source can be directed towards environmental programs. We expect it to be about $39 million the first year, decreasing to zero as quickly as possible and we think that is an appropriate initiative in that regard.

Mr. Harris: It sounds like a tax grab to me, and a desperate one, because the Treasurer realizes he has only another four years to grab all he can out of it. That is his commitment to the environment. The Transportation people say they are going to spend it on roads but maybe the Treasurer knows something different.

I would remind the Treasurer that it is not the first time he or his party have tried to hike gasoline taxes. Our party successfully opposed it when he tried it in his first budget. Now he is back in all his arrogance, with his majority, and he thinks he can ram it down our throats again. This tax on gasoline puts the tax grab at almost $700 million since he has come in. The Treasurer is no tree hugger; he is a gasoline mugger. Why has he chosen now to capitalize on his majority and exploit Ontario drivers?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I did not want to associate the revenue from the three cents a litre tax on leaded gas with highway construction, because it is to be directed towards environmental programs. The honourable member has not referred to the additional one cent a litre across the board on unleaded gas, which is to be directed, to the tune of $100 million this year, to improving our highway and transportation system.

I would like to point out to him that since 1985, the federal government has moved into the gas tax field in a big way. Back in those years, in 1985, the federal tax was under five cents a litre, well below the provincial tax. It has now moved to over 10 cents a litre. So the honourable member, who has the temerity to be critical of this revenue-expansive mood, is actually supporting a party at the federal level which has a gas tax in excess of 10 cents a litre, actually, almost a cent a litre ahead of the tax that will be put before this Legislature some time in the future.

Mr. Harris: I did not know the name of the game was to see how fast the Treasurer could catch up.

The Treasurer mentioned the one cent. I have not forgotten that. When I read the budget, there was a little sense, as l went through the gasoline taxes, of déjà vu. He might be forgetting that there have been governments which have been defeated on 18 cents a gallon tax increases.

In my view, the Treasurer is turning into a road hazard. If he wants to be responsible, I would ask him to abandon his gas tax increase immediately, show his concern for the environment the way other countries do and reduce the tax on unleaded gasoline.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Government policy has already been enunciated in that regard.

1440

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Treasurer regarding the northern Ontario heritage fund. I do not wish to reel off old communiqués or Hansard, but what I have in my hand is from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. It is dated May 20, 1987, 11 months ago yesterday. In fact, it is the budget of May 20. I am quoting: “The Ontario government is furthering a strategy for long-term revitalization of the northern economy. Among the measures announced in today’s budget to assist northern Ontario is a $30-million allocation to establish a northern heritage fund.” May 20, 1987, allocation: $30 million, 1987.

April 20, 1988: A flower that has turned red. I quote from the Highlights, 1988 Ontario Budget: “The northern heritage fund” -- a born-again fund --

Mr. Speaker: And the question.

Mr. Pouliot: -- “begins operation this year to help promote...” and it says $30 million. My question to the Treasurer is very simple: With $30 million for 1987 and $30 million for 1988, will he commit $60 million to be spent under the auspices of the northern heritage fund?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We have committed $360 million between now and the end of the century. I feel that commission is a well-considered one. I sense that the people of the north, while they should show no gratitude, will at least show some understanding of the sensitivity and the excellent minister who administers this program.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon would like to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Pouliot: Question period is great. Question-and-answer period would be even better.

Since the Treasurer --

Interjection.

Mr. Pouliot: No, no; $30 million here, $30 million there. Pretty soon they will be talking about real money.

The Treasurer refuses to acknowledge the obvious, that we are as close as possible to a fraud here unless he spends the $60 million, because he did not spend one penny last year.

Let us examine, by way of supplementary, the export tax on softwood. Up to now, it has generated some $34 million. The Treasurer has not spent five cents of that either. Will he make the commitment that if he will not spend last year’s and this year’s heritage fund, at least we can get back the money that we send down south?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot believe the honourable member is seriously putting to the House that the government of Ontario has not spent $30 million in the north. That is patently absurd --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was the heritage fund.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: If the member wants to talk about the heritage fund, fine. We can return to that. We are now talking about the revenues that are returned to the general revenues of Ontario on the basis of the tax on softwood lumber. We do not earmark any of those dollars but we spend 10 times that much in the north on roads, buildings, programs, education, bridges. It is all there. They are getting it all.

Mr. Harris: I think it was in Sudbury that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised that the softwood tax would be resumed to the benefit of the resource industries in northern Ontario. It was the Premier who made the commitment, not the Treasurer. I understand that. The Premier did.

Why has not one cent of that money been resumed to the north in the past year? Can the Treasurer tell me how he is planning to reinvest that $30 million -- which will go up into northern Ontario each year over the next 12 years -- to benefit the resource industries, as the Premier promised?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The best answer to the question -- and it is perfectly legitimate -- is that the Ministry of Northern Development has an allocated budget this year of $305 million. This is 28.7 per cent greater than last year. That is a clear inclusion of these dollars and many more.

Mr. Harris: Since the Treasurer indicates we are not getting that money the way the Premier promised we would get it -- it is all rolled in; that and everything else; the Treasurer rolls it in so that nobody can trace it -- let me ask him a supplementary.

The Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), in his statement today said, “Therefore, a portion of the fund” -- the $30 million -- “will be used to support continuing private sector initiatives under the Nordev program.” Can the Treasurer tell me what portion of that fund will be put into the Nordev program and can he tell me what portion of the existing money going into Nordev will then be cut out?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is now talking about the heritage fund. It is a separate fund that will be controlled through the Ministry of Northern Development and its own board. That money does not come directly out of the consolidated revenue fund except for its annual increments of $30 million. I am informed that $5 million from next year’s $30 million will be directed to the purpose the honourable member describes.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms. Poole: I have a question for the Minister of Education. As members are aware, this is Education Week in Ontario and I think we would all agree that we have a responsibility to make sure that not only our children are educated and the public is educated, but also that our fellow legislators are educated.

When the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) was asked a question in the House last week about capital funding, I was rather surprised, if not astonished, at some of the comments from my colleagues to my right, both physically and philosophically, about capital funding in education.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Ms. Poole: The question is coming immediately, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have a duty to enlighten. Would the Minister of Education please tell them what the level of capital funding was pre-1985 and what it is today?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to thank the honourable member for her excellent question. Indeed, I am delighted to respond that in this year’s budget, the Treasurer has committed some $300 million for the capital needs of our schools. It is part of a $900-million, three-year plan that will generate some $1.3 billion in additional school facilities.

I think this compares very positively in terms of the amount of increase on a year-to-year basis. It represents a 400 per cent increase over the levels that were established in 1984 and 1985.

Ms. Poole: I thank the minister for that enlightening answer.

I think perhaps the new member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) would appreciate perhaps a few more facts about spending in education, so could the minister elaborate on this year’s budget and the massive increases in education that are coming to this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I have indicated before, this government clearly has shown its commitment to education, not only in terms of the amount of capital funds that will be made available for new school facilities, but indeed in terms of the amount of funds that are available through transfer payments to school boards. This current year’s increase was something in the neighbourhood of 7.2 per cent. I think that truly reflects this government’s tremendous commitment to quality education in this province.

1450

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Treasurer on his Ontario home ownership savings plan or, as it is popularly known, Ohospit.

In trying to identify exactly where this plan would actually generate enough savings to constitute the down payment on a home, we are having some difficulty; obviously not in Toronto, where house prices are in excess of $212,000 or in Brantford where they are just under $100,000. We were unable to get statistics for St. George. I think there was a computer failure there.

Can the Treasurer tell us where this program has an actual practical application in assisting people who are trying to buy their first house, where the amounts stipulated under this program actually come even close, either now or worse yet, five years from now, in supplying them with the down payment for the house? Name one community.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I just want to begin by telling the honourable member that I know of a really nice rural property in the St. George area that if he is interested, we could have some informal discussions on.

Mr. Breaugh: It’s a bad neighbourhood.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, if the member buys and I move out.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Gas has gone up too.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I want to tell the honourable member that the program is one that was an election commitment by the Liberal Party of Ontario and we are responding to it with very minor adjustments, to improve it actually. It is not designed to give anybody a free house, far from it, or even a free down payment. It is designed to assist people, particularly young couples, in saving for the down payment.

While the honourable member may feel it is totally inadequate, the taxpayers of Ontario will be forgoing $50 million in revenue in this particular tax preference.

Mr. Breaugh: I note the Treasurer was unable to name a community where it had any practical use.

Can he tell us, when designing the program, why he excluded people who would actually be qualified for mortgages? This appears to be a program that has no practical application in protecting savings that could really be used for a down payment and, oddly enough, it excludes those who would actually qualify for a mortgage.

Can the Treasurer tell us why this home ownership program excludes those who could actually buy a house and does not do anything in terms of generating savings for mortgages? It seems a strange program indeed that has no application.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It has ample application, and the cost of the application I have already brought to the attention of the honourable member, but what he is talking about is the fact that the regulations and rules that we are going to recommend to this House under this program restrict its application to those families whose joint income is $40,000 a year or less rather than the honourable member’s friends.

[Later]

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To correct the record and the information I gave the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the limit on OHOSP is $40,000 per individual and $80,000 per family, well within mortgage limits.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer should know that an annual income of $62,712 is required in Metropolitan Toronto to qualify for a mortgage. Those people are virtually excluded from Ohospit.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of information.

Mr. Breaugh: If it is a point of order for the Treasurer, surely it is a point of order on this side.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have tried to allow all members to correct the record.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Sterling: I originally wanted to ask a question to the Treasurer about eastern Ontario, but there is nothing in the budget about eastern Ontario, so I am going to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology a question.

I am sure if the minister has read this morning’s press, he is aware of the small business community’s enthusiasm with this budget -- there is none. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 80,000 small businesses across Canada has called this budget inflationary, one which will keep interest rates high, one which will result in higher taxes for them, one which will dampen consumer spending and one which will negate the savings won by small business in the federal tax reform. What does the Treasurer have to answer as the minister who is supposed to speak for small business?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member had read the budgetary documents, I am sure he would know there are several initiatives that really affect small business. There are initiatives in the way that we are providing funding for small businesses to access technicians and engineers, to allow them to be competitive in the high-tech industries. There are provisions so that we can provide availability for them to bid on contracts. There is $25 million for that. There is $38 million for the program I mentioned previously.

There are programs whereby, when they buy manufacturing equipment, there are tax incentives. There are tax incentives for capital reduction. There is a reduction in the taxes for increase in capital. There are lots of programs that will help small business in the most beneficial way possible, to allow them to get positioned so they can become world competitive and so they can adapt to the new high technology they are going to have to operate in. I think it is a very progressive budget from that point of view.

Mr. Sterling: Maybe the minister should talk to the people he is supposed to represent, because Judith Andrew, director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the new deductions for research and development and manufacturing equipment purchases will not benefit the smaller firms that organization represents.

Earlier this week, the minister answered a lobbed question from one of his back-benchers. He said he wanted to help small businesses grow into medium-size businesses and larger businesses. He assured this House he would support small business. As a result of yesterday’s budget, the small business community now finds it has lost the one great advantage it thought it had in the past, the three-year exemption on corporate tax for newly formed small businesses.

Does the minister not think he missed the mark on this? Will he not speak to the Treasurer and really do something for small business for a change?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have no apology to make in the way we treat small business. We have constantly realized that small business is the basis for business in Ontario because most of the businesses are small. We have a series of programs, we have a small business advocate and we are constantly conscious of the concerns of small business. As I said in my response to the member’s earlier question, I am delighted with the initiatives of the Treasurer.

I think we have acted responsibly and, in the long term, we will provide an ability for these small businesses to grow into medium-sized and large businesses. Their future is very well looked after by the initiatives of the Treasurer.

SKILLED WORKERS

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Many communities in this province are relying on small business for their economic growth and survival. With unemployment province-wide in the neighbourhood of five per cent and many high-growth regions running below that, there is a definite lack of skilled and properly trained workers available to small business.

This problem is acute in my own community, but I do not believe we are the exception. At the same time, a week does not go by without several appointments in my office, with people highly qualified in certain areas where they cannot find work. Workers are qualified, but there are no jobs in their field. Yet there are dozens of jobs in other areas where they are not qualified.

What specifically is the ministry doing to improve the number of skilled and properly trained workers available for small business in this province?

1500

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to thank the honourable member for his excellent question. As members know, the Ministry of Skills Development runs Ontario’s skills development offices, which provide a training consulting service throughout the province. Many of the small businesses are not as sophisticated in getting their own training, and our consultant goes out. “Small business” is defined as meaning those businesses that have fewer than 200 employees.

We consult with them, provide training programs and direct them to where the proper training programs are. Of course, there are many programs in the community colleges that are directed to bringing skilled workers to the small businesses.

Mr. Mahoney: It seems to me that the Premier’s Council report has demonstrated the need for training in skills development if we are to continue to be competitive in a global sense, in that the free trade agreement will obviously displace workers all over this country. How is the ministry planning to deal with this future need for skilled workers in different areas of this province as a result of the displacements under the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to inform the honourable member that the Premier established the industrial restructuring commissioner to look into companies that are being folded and to make the adjustment for those employees who are being displaced by such an event.

We know too that my ministry has a transition program in which we provide $5,000 in vouchers for those employees to seek retraining.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Treasurer. In December, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) said, “For too long, the Health ministry could just as easily have been known as the Ministry of Illness or the Ministry of Institutions.” She also said her ministry had “made a commitment to redirect our efforts away from simply the treatment of illness and towards the promotion of health and prevention of disease.”

Can the Treasurer tell us how his budget in respect of the Ministry of Health keeps that commitment, given that there is nothing to expand community health services, nothing for health promotion, nothing for community mental health and nothing to support independent living for seniors and the disabled -- just a heck of a lot more money for institutions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And doctors. I think the fact that we are providing hospitals and doctors is surely the fulfilment of the basic responsibility in response to our medicate commitments. The fact that there is about $12 million that comes under the direct jurisdiction of the honourable minister fills me with a good deal of confidence. Her own judgement and ability is second to none. I know that all members of the House would agree with me in that regard.

Mr. Reville: I do not know how the Treasurer can be confident and at the same time say that the escalation in health care cost is putting at risk other social and economic priorities. But I do want to get to the Treasurer’s taunt about the doctors, and I am going to talk about proportions of the health care budget so that he will not lecture me on the constant dollar situation or this kind of dollar thing.

Mr. Speaker: To what length are you going on this?

Mr. Reville: I have to get the ground rules clear or he will not answer my question.

The Treasurer will be aware, I think, that in the last 10 or 11 years the proportion of money spent on community and public health has actually declined significantly. On the other hand, the proportion of money going to doctors, laboratories and drug companies is increasing, also dramatically.

Is the Treasurer not just a little bit concerned that the average OHIP payment to doctors has gone up by 63 per cent in five years, while the proportion of the health care budget going to community and public health is declining significantly?

Mr. Speaker: That is a good question.

Mr. Reville: What about it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I share the honourable member’s concern. What is in train, as far as the government is concerned, is the council chaired by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself. The vice-chairman is the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) herself, and there is participation by the Ontario Medical Association in the person of their immediate past president, a very well known and capable person, as well as worthies from the broader health care community While I would not for a moment say they are going to come up with an easy answer, I would think that from that group will come the best answer to see that we continue to provide the very best hospital and medical care as efficiently as possible.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Education. All public and separate school boards in Ontario have submitted their 1988 amount of school board tax requirement notices with their municipalities by March 31. In the process of doing that, school boards were totally unaware of and therefore did not budget the amounts of increases which the Treasurer announced yesterday.

The minister obviously, as a member of privy council, had the information. Could he advise this House, and therefore all school boards in this province, what the impact of the retail sales tax increase and the gasoline tax, just to name two of the many increases, will have on school board municipal tax expenditures this year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member asks me for some precise detail which I do not have at my disposal today, in terms of the impacts. In response, I can say this government’s transfers to school boards this year are so generous that I am very confident they will have no difficulty meeting those minor additional requirements as a result of those impacts.

Mr. Jackson: The minister is aware that general legislative grants generally are down for most of the school boards in this province. Many school boards are passing on double-digit municipal tax increases this year as a direct result of the shortfall in anticipated revenue and because of increased enrolments.

The Halton Board of Education has concluded that the impact of the Treasurer’s statement yesterday will cost about $500,000 to the taxpayers. Given that the minister asserts he supports quality education and given that the school board cannot change its budget at this point, does he advise the Halton school board trustees, on the one hand, to reduce educational services by $500,000 in the Halton board, or does he recommend that they overexpend and next year pass on, say, a 13 per cent increase?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ward: In all fairness, I think I do have to correct the member for Burlington South in some of the statements he has just made, referring, in his opinion, to the fact that grant levels for some school boards may have decreased in this province.

As I indicated to an earlier question, grants to school boards in this province increased by some 7.2 per cent. The member, as a former trustee, will know that throughout Ontario assessments are equalized for school board grant purposes, so that boards which have increases in assessment have subsequent offsets in terms of the level of grant.

With specific reference to the Halton board, previously this member indicated that the board suffered some sort of shortfall as a result of the utilization of new equalization factors. I would point out to the member that the Halton board was indeed a beneficiary of a windfall in excess of $400,000 as a result of the new equalization factors. I am quite sure it is well within their capabilities to provide quality education.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That seems like a fairly full answer.

1510

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of the Environment on landfill tipping fees.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Oxford would like to place his question.

Mr. Tatham: In 1987, the average tipping fee at 80 sanitary landfills was $20.36 per ton. That is up by 51.6 per cent from 1986. These fees range from $3.15 a ton in Boise, Idaho, to $65 a ton in North Andover, Massachusetts. The increased tipping fees are placing pressure on the municipalities, which are having trouble meeting the additional cost. What advice does the minister have to help the municipalities out?

Mrs. Grier: It is about time they paid the real cost of landfill, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Exactly. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) assists me in the answer and she is absolutely right, because it is time people recognize that the tipping fee should reflect the real cost of landfill sites.

Those costs, of course, include the proper planning and operation and the ultimate closure and perpetual care of the particular site. Too often in the past, it seemed to me we had tipping fees that simply did not take all of those things into consideration; it was just assumed this was cheap because there was a hole in the ground somewhere. People recognize today that it takes a lot more scrutiny from several levels of government, particularly the Ministry of the Environment, when getting an approval for a landfill site.

We are, however, supporting a number of waste management initiatives. One of those is the recycling program in Ontario. We support the four Rs, including reduction, and that is an ultimate solution to proper waste management.

We see these benefits being reflected in a greater percentage of the material that would normally go into landfill sites being diverted from those landfill sites. Ultimately, that is a cost saving to a municipality.

Mr. Tatham: Another opportunity, Minister. Is there any financial assistance that can be provided to the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The answer to that is yes. When I spoke of recycling, for instance, the municipalities would know that now in 1988 they have five years of assistance provided to them, rather than the previous three years, in terms of a startup of a recycling program. We also have WIMP, WMMP and FAP as additional ones. They are the waste improvement management program, the waste management master plan and the financial assistance program.

I have a statistic that the House will be interested in from these programs which assist municipalities. The amount of waste diverted from this disposal, and this is from recycling, has increased from a mere 51,000 tons in the fiscal year 1984-85 to an estimated 100,000 tons in the current year. Our provincial funding has increased for municipal recycling programs from $750,000 to -- in the new budget this year -- $7.7 million. I could go on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that very much, and no doubt you will have another opportunity.

FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). I was very glad that in his response to earlier questions he talked about the need to look at the record prior to 1985 and he also talked about the need to think in terms of constant dollars.

I am sure the Treasurer is aware that in 1981-82 spending for the Ministry of the Environment was $345 million. If that level of spending was to be maintained, the Treasurer would have had to spend $465 million in the fiscal year 1988-89.

In yesterday’s budget, the Treasurer talked about the government’s recognition of the importance of a clean environment. Given that can the Treasurer explain why, in constant dollars, he has actually reduced spending on the environment by $40 million?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The planned expenditure for this year is $426 million, as the honourable member has indicated, which is a 15.8 per cent year-over-year improvement, which I think is quite significant. As a matter of fact, it might even be a bit much. But the $40 million the honourable member refers to, if in fact it exists in any real terms, has to be made up by the increased efficiency that we have all recognized in the new administration.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: My office continues to be deluged with requests to continue to press the government on the issue of Sunday shopping. I have petitions here that are signed from Thunder Bay, Scarborough and Toronto. The first of these is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’, and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows; ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; 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

“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 listen to the people of Ontario; 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.”

Again, I have attached my name to this petition and I pass it on to the Clerk.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by a number of people, collected by one of the merchants in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale. It 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of Sunday life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed the petition.

I have another petition, which reads differently, 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:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows; ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“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.”

I have signed the petition.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 26 residents of our province who are concerned about this government’s not listening on this issue. It 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of our people throughout the province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have added my name to this petition and I will pass it to the Clerk.

I also have a second petition expressing concern about this government’s unwillingness to listen on this issue. It 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:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1530

I support this petition and hope the government will act to see that we have hearings open to the public on this important issue. I have signed it and it has been forwarded.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition here from a gentleman who wanted to know if this government ever listened to petitions and what people wanted. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; 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;

“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 have signed this petition and I submit it to the chair.

I have a second petition signed by a number of people in the city of Toronto and the borough of Markham.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

Hon. Mrs. Smith: You enunciate so nicely.

Mr. Mackenzie: Do you remember your position on this previously, Joan?

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

Signed by five good citizens of the city of Toronto and the borough of Markham. I sign my name to this and turn it over to the chair.

Ms. Bryden: I am proud to present to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario a petition signed by two residents of the city of Toronto on the subject of Sunday shopping. The petitioners state as follows:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario:

1540

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intention is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of a strong trade union representation, disputes over whether an individual’s and/or company’s actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of the workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because the time necessary for investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

I have signed this petition, I support it and I am pleased to present it to the Legislature.

Mr. Swart: I have a couple of petitions here that you have been anticipating, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to read them into the record at this time. The first one is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

That is signed by 12 people, most of them from the Rexdale area of Toronto.

I have another petition to present, which is also addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and says as follows:

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

“Whereas the report also said, The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; 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;

This is signed by four people in the Toronto area, and I have affixed my signature to it and will send it to the table along with the other petitions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a pleasure to be speaking today and introducing petitions seven days after the government indicated that it was going to introduce legislation which would hurt people’s rights in terms of Sunday working and Sunday shopping.

Mr. Ballinger: Sunday rest.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Sunday rest for some of us.

The Deputy Speaker: And the petition reads?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a petition, sir, signed by a number of people, primarily from the city of Toronto, who were attending an education forum I sponsored a week or so ago. It reads as follows:

1550

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987” -- less than a year ago, l add parenthetically -- “as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; 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;” -- now, of course, they have less money to spend together, as a result of the budget, I add parenthetically.

“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 will affix my signature.

I have two different petitions, albeit on the same subject, this matter of Sunday shopping. The first is signed by 24 members of the Rexdale Alliance Church and it is, unfortunately, brief.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:”

Mr. Mahoney: You can’t do it parenthetically.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I may, parenthetically, be encouraged by members of the government party to add a few extra comments, but in order to follow standing order 31, I will not do so; that would be inappropriate. Instead, I will read as follows:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I will affix my signature and read the third variation on a wonderful theme. It is signed by several residents of Toronto and it is worded as follows -- no, no, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to be replaced. We do not want you to be replaced. I want you to understand that. I just saw a Deputy Speaker hiding in the wings and I was afraid you were about to be replaced, and I wanted to make sure that, under standing order 31(b), I stuck to the petition.

The Deputy Speaker: And it reads?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As it should:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:”

All those who wish to send in petitions should know that is how you should make them out.

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987” -- after a somewhat better budget than we just saw, I add parenthetically -- “as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’” --

Mr. Pelissero: Are you a licensed parenthetic?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, but I think there should be a college of parentheses.

The Deputy Speaker: And it reads?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: “Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

I cannot help but believe that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) had a really major part in that particular quotation.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The select committee’s section on women being adversely affected.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure you had a major role in writing that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Read your petition through the Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I keep forgetting. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was at this position:

“Whereas the report continued as follows” -- this is the report of the committee, Mr. Speaker, in case you have lost the drift -- “‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society;” -- a report, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that was signed by the Solicitor General of Ontario -- “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;

I will affix my signature, and although I have many more to read, I will give somebody else a chance to exercise his vocal cords.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition 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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I will sign my name to it, and I have one other -- for now.

“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

1600

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and” --

Interjection.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Maybe the member for London South (Mrs. Smith) could come and join us and help read some of these. She will get like -- I can almost memorize these at this point.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. And the petition reads?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it would not be out of line because the member for London South did sign the select committee’s report.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you ready?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

It is signed by one person from Smithville, Ontario.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

It is signed by 12 residents of Etobicoke, and I am happy to put my name on that petition.

I have an additional petition I would like to read. This one is also addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; 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 they 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

“We therefore 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 the sentiments indicated in that petition.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a number of petitions here. I think this is from the People’s Church in Hamilton.

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the lap of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

I say to the Solicitor General, I think it was unanimous, right?

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; 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 the existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend their time together;

I am pleased to sign that, and I have another one to follow. It is interesting to see the back-benchers and ex-cabinet ministers who are on House duty on the government side.

“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:”

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: How come my friends got stuck? Back-benchers? They are almost back-benchers.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition reads?

Mr. Mackenzie: I apologize for being interrupted like that. The petition reads: “Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and” --

An hon. member: Get the air cleaned up.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member might try putting gasoline in the vent again. Somebody did it yesterday.

1610

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987,” just 11 months ago, “as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; 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

“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 am pleased to sign my name to that petition and we will let somebody else have a chance. We should be good for another week or so.

Mr. Swart: I have a raft of petitions here to present. I am surprised that the members of the Liberal Party do not take their turn in presenting petitions.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition reads?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I will read this to you, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they must have a lot hiding in their desks, because they are getting these all across the province.

This is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and, I am sure, reads the same as many of those received by members who will not present them here in this House. It starts off:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

Mr. Haggerty: We have horse racing on Sunday, bingo --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Swart: I’ve seen you coming out of the bingo parlours, too.

The Deputy Speaker: The petition continues?

Mr. Swart: The petition continues as follows, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for bringing me back to it:

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

That is signed by Marie Hallaway. Madam Speaker, I am just going to sign this myself. Do not give my spot to anybody else.

I have another petition that a person wants me to present here as well. This petition is addressed also, as it should be, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is somewhat similar to the last one, as it says:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1620

That is signed by Wesley Packham of RR 2, Ancaster, Ontario. From all across this province, people are petitioning this government to back off. I will sign this and then I will turn this in and let one of my other colleagues speak, or perhaps the Liberal members, who must have all kinds of petitions that they refuse to bring before this Legislature because they are so embarrassed.

Mr. Allen: In keeping with the most profound traditions of parliamentary democracy, it is a privilege to read a petition bearing 27 names from west Toronto 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

As I said, this contains 27 names. I have affixed my name to it and I send it to the Clerk in the hands of the page. I have a further petition, and this is signed by persons who reside in the rural district around Ancaster, Ontario. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I have affixed my name to this petition and I send it, at the hands of the page, to the table of the Clerk.

Mr. Laughren: There have been so many petitions read that the pages have memorized them. I can see them mouthing the words as we go.

This is a petition against Sunday shopping and against the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer.

“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 the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature,” including the Liberals, “reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows” --

Mr. Polsinelli: Half of us weren’t around then.

Mr. Laughren: You were; the parliamentary assistant was around then.

“‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’” -- Madam Speaker, I wish I could editorialize on that quote, but I know you would not want me to do so -- “and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: “The committee,” and this is the all-party legislative committee, “strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’” --

Mr. Polsinelli: What committee was that?

Mr. Laughren: That was the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, an all-party committee that made a unanimous report, including the Liberals.

Mr. Polsinelli: I’d love to debate that report.

Mr. Laughren: Well, if the member wants to debate the report, he would also be debating a lot of his own members who signed that report.

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family, which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; 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;

In other words, they are opposed to Sunday shopping. There are four signatures on this petition, all from the same address, plus mine.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition which is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

1630

In addition, I have another petition on the same subject, which reads --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): One moment. Before you proceed with that petition, is the first one going to be signed and presented?

Mrs. Grier: I am sorry. I was just trying to speed things up. I am doing them two at a time.

The Acting Speaker: Please continue with your next petition.

Mrs. Grier: “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 the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation relating to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

Mr. Reville: I have a petition 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by 11 petitioners from the Weston-Rexdale area. I have appended my own name thereto and I present that. In the interest of saving time, I have another one, which reads in this fashion:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“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.”

This petition was originally signed by two residents of Cambridge, one of whom has crossed her name off it. I take it she has changed her mind. So there is one signature on there and I have endorsed it, as is required.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further petitions? The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition. It is --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Cambridge has the floor. I would hope that all members would allow him to proceed with his petition.

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition signed by 45 citizens of the province. 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:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’, and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

1640

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness 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.”

It is with great pleasure that I attach my name to this petition. I will hand it over to the page for delivery to the Clerk.

The Acting Speaker: Any further petitions? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The competition is so furious for it that I was not sure. As a result, I will just read one of my short ones so that the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) can get up. It is on behalf of people of the city of Toronto and reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:” -- there are two on this particular petition. I have no idea what the total is now, but it must be quite considerable. We will try to get that information for the members as quickly as we can.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Two educationalists in the city of Toronto.

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows:” -- and I quote from the Solicitor General, who no doubt wrote this part – “‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows:” -- shepherded as it was by the Solicitor General – “‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously’” -- I presume that includes the Solicitor General presently – “‘rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I will sign my name to this and allow the member for Hamilton West to get up in his rightful order.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Hamilton West.

Mr. Allen: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. No one more than yourself, who is a product of the parliamentary tradition and the democratic assumptions which go with it, would be more appreciative of the fact that we are reading petitions from Her Majesty’s loyal subjects into the record on this particular issue, which is so dear to their hearts and so close to their working lives and their own families’ very existence.

I have a further petition of 39 names from a number of residents of Etobicoke. This is straight to the point. It 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I put my name to this document, as required under the standing orders of this House, and I give it to the page to take to the table of the Clerk.

I have a further petition as well, which is signed by a lady in Hamilton, and it 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:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I have put my name to this petition, and I send it by the hand of the page to the table of the Clerk.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition here from some residents of Etobicoke.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

It is signed by 16 citizens, I believe, of the riding of Etobicoke. I have another one, also from residents of the city of Toronto. It reads as follows:

1650

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

It is signed by eight residents of the city of Toronto, and I also sign that. I have a further one with 12 or 13 signatures from the city of Toronto.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I am pleased to sign that.

Mr. Swart: A few moments ago, I read a petition from a Mr. Packham at 1287 Trinity Road in Ancaster. Now I have one from his wife. I understand there are two reasons why they put in separate petitions. One is that they want to emphasize their strong feeling against Sunday shopping --

The Acting Speaker: Would you please continue with the petition; the contents thereof?

Mr. Swart: Do you want to know the other reason? Because she is a feminist and she believes in equality, she wants a petition of her own. I support her in that.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please proceed with the petition?

Mr. Swart: “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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I will sign this, as is required, by a member of this Legislature. I fully endorse the sentiments expressed in this petition. Perhaps I can be permitted to present another one.

The Acting Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr. Swart: Thank you.

Mr. South: How about the story of your father buying the horse?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: I would tell the member another one in the same vein, but I think the Speaker might interrupt. That would be a possibility, would it not?

The Acting Speaker: Certainly. Please proceed with your petition.

Mr. Swart: Thank you. Surprisingly, this is worded somewhat similarly to the last one and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario 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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

That is signed by Sylvia Baker and Wayne Baker. They thought they would have more impact if they both signed the same petition, working as a team. I will now sign this and turn it over to the page, who will take it to the Clerk’s table.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further petitions? The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mrs. Grier: A lot more petitions, Madam Speaker. I have one addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by a number of residents of Etobicoke-Rexdale.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you have another petition to read?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The most mellifluous voice of the lot, BBC quality.

Mrs. Grier: Yes, I have another petition and I am happy to tell the House leader that it is Radio Eireann he is hearing, not the BBC.

“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

1700

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows” --

Mr. Laughren: Seventeen?

Mrs. Grier: Yes, 17.

-- “‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“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 am pleased to sign that petition.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt, please.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair again.

“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 believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed that and would send it to the table.

I have another petition. They are coming in faster than we can read them.

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the first of 17” -- count them; 17 – “unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

I have affixed my name to this petition quite proudly and forward it to the Clerk’s table.

I have one other petition I would like to read at this moment. It 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have signed this petition and forward it to the table.

The Deputy Speaker: Other petitions? The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Sorry. I was sleeping at the switch a little bit there. I have a petition 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:

“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 the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

It is signed by a lady in my own riding, on Rosseau Road, in Hamilton. I am pleased to sign this and submit it to the chair.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you have some more petitions? Are there any other petitions?

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet, in the morning and following routine proceedings on Wednesday, April 27, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Fleet: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent to revert to reports.

The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.

Motion negatived.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, on behalf of Hon. Mrs. Smith, first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

1712

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1988

1600

Mr. Speaker: I have been advised by representatives of all three parties in the House that a vote will not take place before at least 8:30 a.m. on Monday, April 25.

I am therefore suspending the sitting, and the bells are deemed to be ringing until the sitting is resumed at 8:30 a.m. on Monday next.

Mr. Speaker suspended proceedings at 4:01 p.m.

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1988

1310

The House divided on Hon. Mrs. Smith’s motion for first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Swart.

Ayes 75; nays 27.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of April 25.

This afternoon, we will consider government notice of motion 11 standing in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

On Tuesday, April 26, we will hear the budget responses of the official opposition and the third party.

On Wednesday, April 27, and Thursday, April 28, we will have a general debate on the budget motion. At 10 a.m. on Thursday, we will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves).

There may be additional business which I will be announcing later in the week.

The House adjourned at 1:18 p.m.

April 21, 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SUNSET REVIEW

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

SUNSET REVIEW

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BUDGET

VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS

BUDGET

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL FUNDING

ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE DAY

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

LA SEMAINE DU BÉNÉVOLAT VOLUNTEER WEEK

RESPONSES

FONDS DU PATRIMOINE DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

VOLUNTEER WEEK

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

VOLUNTEER WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

TAX INCREASES

GASOLINE TAX

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

SMALL BUSINESS

SKILLED WORKERS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

WASTE MANAGEMENT

FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1988

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1988

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE