role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 30, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L070 - Mon 30 May 1988 / Lun 30 mai 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ROUGE VALLEY

SMALL UNIVERSITIES

CHRISTIANITY IN THE UKRAINE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

REPRODUCTIVE CARE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

HOUSING SUPPLY

REAL ESTATE CLOSINGS

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TABLING OF INFORMATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PETITIONS

DRINKING AND DRIVING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ABORTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Grier: Today marks the opening of Canadian Environment Week. I regret to find that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will not be in the House to mark it with us. He is, of course, making a grand speech somewhere, allowing the media a full photo opportunity. After all, that is his job.

Meanwhile, we have seen almost an entire session of this Legislature pass with no new initiatives having been taken by the government to protect the environment. Where is the long-promised policy on intervener funding? Where are legislation and standards to protect our drinking water, an issue made even more critical by events such as last week’s chemical spill in the St. Clair River? Have private projects been brought under the Environmental Assessment Act? No. We have a discussion document on that issue and another one on a new air pollution regulation, but no legislation.

The only piece of environmental legislation before the House this session has been my private member’s bill to enact an environmental bill of rights. It reached the standing committee on resources development before being derailed and deferred by the government majority.

Then there is the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, the cornerstone of the government’s pollution control program and problem. The timetable for implementation proudly announced by the minister in June 1986 said that, of the nine industrial sectors, seven would have monitoring regulations in place by June 1988. We are almost into June, and guess how many monitoring regulations have been issued? Not one.

It is a sad commentary with which to begin Canadian Environment Week.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Cousens: This is Canadian Environment Week. I would like to illuminate the public on the lack of environmental leadership that we are experiencing in this province. Let us consider the Rouge Valley, an environmentally significant area and the last green door in Metro Toronto. While the city of Scarborough has taken a stand to promote regional-scale open space, recreation and rural heritage in the Rouge Valley, the Liberal government, the major landowner, has yet to come up with a plan that it can stick to.

This government makes its decisions by headline. One day housing is important; so the government says, “Let us put houses in the Rouge.” The next day garbage disposal is important; so the government says, “Let us put landfill in the Rouge.” Now provincial parks are the issue; so the Liberals want to make a park out of the Rouge. By default, they have finally come to their senses. This Liberal government has managed to turn 360 degrees and is back to the original provincial plan for the Rouge.

The previous Tory government supported a park concept for the northeastern Scarborough lands since the early 1970s. The present Liberal government must stick to this plan now and support Scarborough’s decision to keep open the last green door of Metro Toronto.

How can the Minister of the Environment expect this crisis to be resolved if he will not even co-operate with Metro and regional officials and sit down at the same table to ensure that there is an all-out, co-ordinated effort to tackle this mountainous problem?

SMALL UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Adams: I rise to draw the attention of the House to the importance of the small universities within the higher-education system of this province. In these days of limited funds, there is a great danger in education and elsewhere of thinking in terms of “big is better” rather than “small is beautiful.” We assume that the economies of scale automatically apply to universities in the same way they do to other institutions in our society.

I submit that the strength of our university system lies in the spectrum of institutions rather than in one or a few of those institutions. Within that spectrum, the small universities have a special place, nurturing students in a personalized, educational environment, allowing our young people to mature in an institution which they feel they can influence rather than simply being influenced by it. This gives them a confidence which lasts for life.

I urge the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) to use her personal influence and knowledge to counteract the natural but unhealthy tendency for the interests of the large universities to override those of the small.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE UKRAINE

Mr. Philip: Yesterday the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and I had an opportunity to participate in an ecumenical service in front of the parliament buildings. This service, organized by the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, commemorated the 1,000th anniversary of the beginnings of Christianity in the Ukraine, which can be traced to the missionary activities of St. Andrew.

Congratulations should be offered to the Ukrainian Canadian Committee on a very successfully organized activity and to the 4,000 people who gave up their Sunday afternoon in very warm weather to participate in this memorial celebration.

It is ironic that at a time when hostility between the world’s greatest powers is being diminished, Christians are still being persecuted for practising their faith in the Ukraine. Let us hope that the service held yesterday in front of our democratic parliament and similar services throughout the world have made an impression on the Kremlin leaders. Let us hope that glasnost and perestroika will be extended to the treatment of practising Christians in the Ukraine.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just recently, I received a letter from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), reminding all members of this Legislature that this week, May 29 to June 4, is National Access Awareness Week. “Partners in community action with disabled persons” is what the booklet says.

I would like the minister to know that I strongly support his initiatives to make life better for disabled citizens, but I truly wonder if his government shares the same commitment. I would like to use three examples of ministries that have not followed his instructions.

Ministry of Natural Resources: By banning the use of outboard motors, including those tiny, silent, electric motors, in 91 wilderness and nature reserve parks – 10.5 million acres – the ministry is denying access to these parks to thousands of our elderly and disabled citizens.

Ministry responsible for senior citizens’ affairs: Disabled seniors living in two-storey senior citizens’ apartment buildings are being denied access to their own homes or apartments if they become disabled and cannot use the stairs and there are no elevators in those buildings. This is a responsibility someone in the ministry has to take on.

The Ministry of Health is not providing adequate funding for orthopaedic and arthritic hospitals, so many disabled people are placed on surgical waiting lists of two or more years. This certainly is an example of a government that really is not serious about the wellbeing of the disabled citizens of our province, as it should be.

Mr. Cousens: The people around Metropolitan Toronto are becoming increasingly unhappy with the problems we are having now in this city with --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There was a Liberal member whom I did not see, the member for Halton North, pardon me.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Mr. Elliot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a statement supporting one of our neighbours, the Royal Ontario Museum.

On the invitation of the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and Joan Thompson, deputy chairman of the board of trustees of the ROM, 15 representatives of the Liberal caucus visited the museum on Tuesday, May 17. We visited the museum primarily to hear a presentation on the museum’s outreach program, but we were also privileged while there to take

part in a tour of the Treasures of the Holy Land exhibit, which opened May 9 and continues until September 5, 1988.

The outreach program at the Royal Ontario Museum is comprehensive. I would like to highlight two features of it in this statement. One package is called the Skyshow Learning Resources Package. This includes a full-colour wall chart, a 26-page student manual and an 11-page teacher’s manual. This package contains 13 different sun topics.

A second package is called the resource-box program. ROM resource boxes contain museum materials available for loan only to teachers. There are 29 resource box topics listed in the ROM literature, covering such diverse topics as fossils, minerals, dinosaurs and 19th-century writing. A resource box labelled Insects could be used by a kindergarten teacher or a biology teacher on insect classification.

We came away from the ROM with the distinct impression that we are fortunate to have --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Order, please.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I have a letter from a patient in Ontario waiting 10 months for hip surgery, who thinks the government’s response is completely shocking, without any compassion and somewhat callous on the part of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

It tells this writer that our society should not expect the best when it comes to health care, even though we have contributed our best to make this province and our society the best, to quote the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) election rhetoric.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Hon. Mr. Patten: The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and I last month announced that five government-owned sites in Metropolitan Toronto would be made available under the Housing First policy to create more housing for low- and moderate-income earners. At that time, I stated that this policy of providing government-owned sites for housing would be applied across the province.

Earlier today, I talked with Bill Sears, regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth, and Dan Napper, mayor of Stoney Creek, and I am pleased to announce a major housing undertaking on 97 acres of land in Stoney Creek, a community of some 45,000 people near Hamilton. This is for the purpose of creating more affordable housing for Hamilton-Wentworth.

My colleague the Minister of Housing and the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins) today are making similar statements about our new plans for the Stoney Creek site. Heritage Green is the name of the community. It is located on Stoney Creek mountain, north of Highway 53 and west of Highway 20. It is a planned community designed to provide a broad range of housing from large-lot single units to medium-and higher-density residential blocks.

To date, 1,450 units have been constructed on 377 acres. The remaining 950 acres of provincial land have the potential of producing an additional 6,500 housing units with institutional, recreational and commercial facilities over the next 10, 15 or 20 years.

In the coming months, my ministry is moving to develop and market 45 acres with the potential of 420 housing units, including a mixture of detached and multiple-family homes. We also expect approval this summer on a draft plan to develop a further 52 acres of Heritage Green, providing additional single-family, semidetached and medium-density units.

My ministry has completed a comprehensive, secondary planning study for the remaining lands. The secondary plan is now before the city of Stoney Creek and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth for approval. Once approved, the plan will establish land-use designations and development patterns for many years to come.

In these plans, special attention has been given to promoting Housing First programs by making sites available to create affordable housing. When completed, approximately one third -- closer to 35 per cent in fact -- of the Heritage Green development will be housing for low- and moderate-income earners.

As well as the sites in today’s announcement, my ministry has just completed the sale of 163 serviced lots in Heritage Green and we anticipate construction of housing will begin next month. Proceeds from the lots sold to commercial developers for single-family and semi-detached housing will of course be applied to the housing development fund announced by my colleague the Minister of Housing last month.

Throughout the development of the Heritage Green community, the provincial government has worked hard and worked hand in hand with Stoney Creek to plan balanced neighbourhoods on these government-owned lands. This process will continue as more lands are released in the coming months and it underlines our commitment to work in partnership with municipalities. Developing surplus provincial lands is just one part of the solution of current housing situations, but it is an important demonstration of our recognition of the need and our political will to act.

We intend to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province and sites within and around Metropolitan Toronto.

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. B. Rae: I think it is important for the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and this government to come clean in terms of what they are doing. When they announce that they are making surplus land available for housing, buried at the end of the statement is the description of what this government is doing. What it is doing, in fact, is selling off land to private commercial development so that the government makes money off that sale and then, having taken that money, it puts it into something called its housing fund, which is going to be used one day to produce other kinds of accommodation -- what is referred to as affordable accommodation of one kind and another.

The minister is shaking his head. What I heard him say and what I see in the statement today is that they have “completed the sale of 163 serviced lots in Heritage Green and we anticipate construction of housing will begin next month. Proceeds from the lots sold... for single-family and semi-detached housing will... be applied to the housing development fund announced by my colleague the Minister of Housing” in March.

The minister is saying that and, as I understand it, what we are seeing is precisely the same problem we have had in Malvern. Instead of directly using government land for the construction of affordable housing, what the government is doing is, at least in part, selling off that land and putting that money into a fund which will be used to build housing.

Where? The answer is “Someplace else.” That is the problem. What we have is a government where the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) together with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) sit down and talk to the municipalities and make it sound as if they are going to get really tough about how the municipalities are supposed to plan in terms of affordable housing.

But when it comes to its own land, what we see is a government that is prepared to do precisely what municipal governments are doing, precisely what private developers are doing, precisely what is the problem, and that is to sell off available land in exchange for money which will be used for whatever purposes the government decides it will be used for.

It is all very well to say we are building up money in the housing fund, but it does not provide shelter for people who need it, it does not provide a roof over the heads of families who want it and it does not deal directly with the problem. What we face is not a shortage of money; what we face is a shortage of land -- serviced land -- and lots which the government is prepared to use on behalf of those who need it most.

While all looks sufficiently rosy indeed for the minister to be away together with her colleague to make the announcement, buried within the announcement is an indication that the government is a speculator and a developer just like everybody else. That is what troubles me. What troubles me is that the government is not using its land for the most affordable kind of housing; it is using its land to sell off to development.

Mr. Philip: On the minister’s statement, what we still are lacking in this province is a comprehensive audit and plan for the use of crown land to create directly affordable housing for the people who are in need of that housing. This proposal does not do anything to solve that problem.

We have been waiting for years and years with both this government and the previous government. This government announced it was going to do the adequate audits, and we still have not had those audits. We still do not know exactly where it plans on using the crown land or if it plans on using it all directly to create some affordable housing.

There is nothing in this statement that suggests the price range at which this housing that is being created will come in. We can tell by the description that certainly what is going to be constructed on that site, on crown land, will hardly be affordable housing. There will be detached homes, and I am willing to bet they will cost $200,000 or higher.

What we have here is an announcement that looks like a plan but is no plan at all.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to commend the minister for at least moving in the right direction and suggest that one of the problems we have in housing is affordable lots. If we can free up some lots, as in the method the minister has just presented to the House today, it is one avenue that we should be approaching, but I strongly urge the minister to do more, especially in other parts of the province.

The minister stated in the last paragraph that he intends to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province and within and around Metropolitan Toronto. I realize there is a very great urgency for this part of the province, but in many of the other municipalities there are people who need affordable housing as well. I think the major problem is that lots are so expensive that only really expensive homes can be built on them. It would make more sense to have less expensive lots.

One of the problems we have is the conflict between the ministries. We have the Ministry of Agriculture and Food refusing to allow practically any land to go out of agriculture, and in many of the small municipalities in rural Ontario they need land to build on. By refusing to allow any land to go out of production, the ministry does not allow this to happen.

The Ministry of the Environment creates a problem. In a small village in my riding, the Ministry of the Environment insists that the municipality must put in a new sewage treatment plant. The Ontario Municipal Board will not allow it to go ahead and borrow the money that is necessary to put in the plant. It cannot grow without the approval of the OMB, and the Ministry of the Environment will not assist it to the degree that is necessary to achieve the results the government is looking for.

The government has a conflict within ministries. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should all be working to resolve the issue, working together with the municipal councils to help them to plan affordable lots. If the price of land is reasonable, then the houses will be reasonable as well.

I hope the minister will give consideration to working with his caucus colleagues and his fellow ministers in designing some type of program that will help small, rural municipalities as well as downtown Metro.

Mr. Cousens: Maybe we have a new Minister of Housing. The Minister of Government Services is able to have as much influence in this government as the Minister of Housing when it comes to making announcements.

We are glad to have announcements like this for Stoney Creek and we would like to hear more announcements. If the minister wants to

schedule one for tomorrow and one for the next day and to start bringing them closer to Metropolitan Toronto and to those city and urban areas where we have problems, we would be very pleased.

I know this sounds like a good project and it sounds as if there has been co-operation among the government, the municipality and the regional government. That is as it should be. But the shocking thing is --

Mr. Ballinger: Do you agree?

Mr. Cousens: Sure I agree. Let us give them a compliment when it is due. We will throw them another banana. But we need to have more happening in those areas where there is a crisis right now.

I would like to comment briefly on the point that was made by the member for Wellington (Mr. Johnson). We have several ministries that are involved in housing problems. Why is there not some consolidation of this so that we have the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) all working together so that there is a chance of something happening?

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: Not the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). If the minister gets rid of the labour strikes and labour disputes, then he will have done something.

I would like to comment briefly as well that here we are talking about further announcements throughout the province and in and around Metropolitan Toronto. I would love it if the minister could come along with some time frame within which he is going to do something where the crisis is especially bad. We are using the word “crisis” not just because it is a problem we have had for a while. When we have two units in a thousand available for people in a large urban area such as this, the problem is not getting any better.

We have to have a spirit of co-operation between the government and the private sector so that there is some way in which we have a program that develops into the future. I do not see that happening.

This is an isolated example. This is not the standard. This is not something the news media should start thinking is going to be happening every day, because I doubt very much whether there will be another announcement like this tomorrow or next week or how soon it will be before the government does something more. This has to be the beginning of a significant effort, not just more window dressing, not just more words. Let us start accomplishing something to address the needs of those people who are desperate for housing.

Let us start putting it together in the government first, and if there is one person who is going to head it, it should happen without delay. We can begin to see some progress.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question on poverty and welfare assistance of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I do want to wait for the Premier to return, so I will stand down my first question and will ask a question of the Minister of Health.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has heard some of what I have to say before and I say to her in all sincerity I am going to keep on asking until the situation changes, because the cases just keep coming in at such a rate that we simply have to deal with this problem.

On Friday of last week, I met with a woman whose name is Ann Ricker. She is 54 years old. I visited her at her home in Welland. She is very badly crippled with rheumatoid arthritis. She has terrific difficulty in getting around her house. She is in enormous pain. She basically has had rheumatoid arthritis for nine years. She has been talking to doctors about an operation for the last four years. Now she got a letter from Dr. Cameron saying that she is, again, one of these patients who is going to have to wait. Her operation has been rescheduled from November 1988 to November 1989.

What specific steps can the minister outline which she is now prepared to take to deal with those patients who are on a waiting list for a year and a half to two years and who are in excruciating pain? I am sure the minister will appreciate that the system simply has to respond to people who are in this kind of need.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have mentioned before in the House, waiting lists are not something new. They have developed over the past number of years. We have surveyed hospitals in this province to determine their waiting lists specifically for hip replacements. In fact, it varies across this province from two weeks following consultation to 28 months.

I am concerned about the wide variance in those waiting lists. It is the physician who determines, and his responsibility to determine, where on the waiting list the patient is placed, but it is important to note the causes of these waiting lists. We are reviewing them right now. Often it is the patient’s choice of doctor, the urgency of the case or the complexity of the surgery required.

Mr. B. Rae: The patient does not choose the specialist. The specialist is somebody a general practitioner refers the patient to. That is all very well, but first, it is not a hip replacement, it is a knee replacement, which is a somewhat rarer and trickier operation in terms of its widespread use across the province.

I would simply like to refer the minister to another problem, if she can, while she is dealing with that one. Phillip Tourangeau from Windsor has been on the urgent waiting list for a triple heart bypass since February 1988. He is 61 years old and has had two heart attacks, one in December 1986 and one in November 1987. His angiogram, which was done in February 1988, indicated the need for a bypass, but Victoria Hospital in London has been unable to

schedule this surgery.

There are 100 people on the waiting list at Victoria Hospital. We have learned this morning that the hospital will be cutting back operating-room time by 25 per cent over the summer months -- which is not unusual, in the sense that it is not the only hospital to be doing this, but it is going to have an impact on that waiting list.

Again, I have a question directly to the minister. If she says the problem is planning and if she says the question is who is going to plan and who is going to be in charge, I say to her that if she wants to take the responsibility for planning, she should take it.

I would like to ask her what she is going to do as minister to reduce this unacceptable length of time for patients whose lives and whose health is being risked because of the waiting lists across the province right now.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The substantial difference in waiting lists across the province is something that concerns me greatly because I think it speaks exactly to the issue we have been discussing here, and that is planning. If we allow the hospitals to plan independently and individually, then we end up with this wide disparity of waiting lists which, in some cases, as I have said to the member, are from two weeks to 28 months. That is clearly unacceptable.

We are looking at a number of measures. We do not believe, however, that it is simply a question of throwing money at the situation. What we are looking at is central bed registries. As I have mentioned in the case of cardiac care, it has worked quite successfully in a number of other situations. We are also looking at working closely with the district health councils as we review those waiting lists and also remind the physicians and the hospitals in this province that they have a responsibility to make sure that those requiring urgent care do receive priority.

That is how the system is designed, and I believe there is much we can do to make sure it operates both efficiently and effectively.

Mr. B. Rae: To those patients who are waiting in pain and listening to this question period, if there is something the minister can do, the question on their minds is why in the name of goodness she has not done it now so that people do not have to wait the way they have been waiting. If she has the answers, why does she not start to implement them so that Mrs. Ricker does not have to wait until November 1989 to be relieved of her pain?

I would like to ask by way of final supplementary to the minister, who talks about planning and how she is introducing new modes of planning, what she is going to do about the situation in Ottawa, where we have done a complete review of all the waiting lists and the occupancy lists in the hospitals and how they have changed since 1985. The number of patients who are occupying acute care beds in Ottawa hospitals who are in fact chronic care patients has grown by 27 per cent since December 1985. The average number of patients who are inappropriately placed, as the bureaucrats say, has gone up from 36 per cent to 46 per cent in 1987.

We can do a survey of community after community and we can continue to pile up the cases of patients who are waiting. What we are saying to the minister is, if she is not happy with the current administration of the hospitals, if she is not happy with the current law with respect to how hospitals plan, if she is not happy with the way in which these things are being done, if she is not happy with the way in which doctors are prioritizing patients who are sick, then it is her responsibility to do something about it; it is her responsibility to see that the waiting lists are reduced --

The Deputy Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. B. Rae: -- and that we do not continue to have patients in hospitals when they should not be there.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very concerned that we have services available in communities and regions across this province when patients need them as close to their homes as possible. We are moving, and in fact we have taken significant steps in the past three years to address this. We have significantly increased hospital base budgets by some 39 per cent. We have added some 400 new beds, particularly chronic beds, across this province, and they are in various stages of planning as part of an $850-million capital program.

We are looking at a number of initiatives: One, we are working very closely with district health councils and hospitals on an individual basis in the short term while we get this kind of new mode of good planning and help them, rather than accusing or getting into any kind of confrontation mode with them. We are working closely with them individually. We are working with district health councils to ensure that we have the kind of good planning that will mean these problems that have existed for some period of time in the past will be corrected in the future as we lead to our goal of fairly funding our hospital system.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. As the leader stood down his first question, we shall go with the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is for the Minister of Health. The question relates to and flows out of the series of questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae). The minister indicates that she is concerned about health care and as well that there has been an expansion of the number of beds over the last while -- I believe she used the number of 400.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Four thousand.

Mr. Brandt: She said 400.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Four thousand.

Mr. Brandt: There are 4,000 additional beds?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Brandt: What I would like to point out to the minister with respect to the hospital bed situation and the waiting list is that tomorrow the hospitals that are in a deficit position have been asked to provide her with balanced budgets. I would like to know if the minister is aware, and I am sure she is, that some 90 hospitals are in a deficit position and it will require approximately $60 million to clear off the deficits of those particular hospitals.

In doing a survey of only eight of the hospitals, it would appear that in order for those eight hospitals to meet the minister’s requirements for a balanced budget, they will have to, not open or increase the number of beds, but close 156 beds, which will obviously aggravate the waiting list and increase the length of time patients wait for these services.

I ask the minister, is that acceptable to her?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have announced a well-planned program for ensuring we have hospitals that can balance their budgets. One year ago, the former minister gave them an across-the-board increase to bring them into a balanced situation. We asked them to submit balanced budgets this year. We have been reviewing those with chronic deficits and from the information we have, we intend to move in the future to fair funding.

What we have said is that we recognize there are some situations where the ministry has approved programs and not adequately resourced the base. We also recognize there are some situations where hospitals have acted independently, for whatever reason, and expanded programs, or started new programs or added medical staff and services without adequate resources and without ministry approval.

We are working with them on an individual basis as they present their budgets so that we can have the kind of system across this province where the Minister of Health does not simply write the cheques, but encourages the kind of good planning of our health care system that will result in better health care in this province.

Mr. Brandt: Let it be said that we on this side of the House are all in favour of good planning. We share the concerns of the minister and we want to have a well-managed health care system. But I ask the minister to be somewhat sympathetic about the fact that in many of these hospitals, we are not talking about increasing the services the hospitals are providing. We are in fact talking about an increase in demand for existing services on the part of many of those hospitals.

To give her a specific example, my own hospital, St. Joseph’s Hospital in the city of Sarnia, will have to close 40 beds for one year to meet her demands with respect to budgets simply because it has had a tremendous increase in the demand for services through that particular hospital -- no new programs, no outside embellishments to what it has offered in the past, but simply an open-ended demand on the system over which it has no control. I ask the minister, is she prepared to allow that hospital to close 40 beds because it is operating at a deficit?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said very clearly on a number of occasions in this House that we will ensure that essential services are maintained in the communities across this province. We have not cut any budget of a hospital in this province. They have all been increased and we are working with them to assist them to balance their budgets.

We recognize there are two approaches we could take. We could simply throw money at the situation or we could work closely with district health councils and hospitals to help to rationalize services in communities, to regionalize care and to make sure we are using our resources as efficiently as possible.

Where we have a situation that we have not adequately resourced, based on approval in advance and approved programs, we will make those adjustments. Where we find that hospitals have acted without ministry approval, we expect them to bring their services in line with ministry approval as we work to our goal in the future of having fairly funded hospitals.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to see the rump over there applauding this particular answer because I find it totally unacceptable. They should listen carefully to what the hospitals are going to have to do to meet the demands of their minister.

Emergency wards are being closed for the night. They are turning away ambulances when the wards are too full. They are cutting back on replacement surgery for orthopaedic patients, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out. They are cutting back on neonatal beds, less than five months after several infants in this province were flown out of the country because of lack of beds right here in Ontario.

Does the minister find this an improvement in health care in Ontario? Does she find that the services I am talking about are services she has not approved and should not be offered by the hospitals? I find her position totally unacceptable. I find that applause over there to cut these kind of services absolutely insulting.

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Brandt: Can I ask the minister to give us some answer as to what she is prepared to do for these hospitals?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are a number of points I would like to make, that is, if this member of the third party had managed better when his party was in government and sent a consistent message to the hospitals, we would not have that problem today.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. No one in a life-threatening situation in this province will ever be turned away from a hospital. Essential services will be maintained in the communities. That is the commitment we have made. We are committed to well-planned and well-managed health care in this province. One thing further --

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are just wasting your own time. Is the minister finished?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes.

REPRODUCTIVE CARE

Mr. Eves: I also have a question for the Minister of Health. On September 30, 1987, her Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care submitted its second report to her. In the second week of May 1988, some eight months later, she quietly made this report available at the Ontario Government Bookstore. The minister has had the report for eight months now. What action has she taken to implement its recommendations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have taken significant action to implement the recommendations of this report. The ratios at the present time in Ontario, if you consider all of level 3 including the modified beds, are at 1.9 per cent. The report recommended 1.75 per cent.

Mr. Eves: Let me quote to the minister from the report:

“At the present time, there are no ministry-funded positions for the training of subspecialists in obstetric or paediatric perinatology. An urgent need exists for the funding of positions for subspecialty training.”

On May 16 in this Legislature, in response to a question of mine about residencies in the province, the minister told this House that manpower planning was a priority with her. Yet she has ignored manpower planning suggested by this committee, which she commissioned, and she and her predecessor have a policy to reduce the number of residencies in the province by 200.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that there are enough specialists to meet the demands of perinatal care in this province so our patients do not have to go to Winnipeg or Buffalo in the future?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me remind the member opposite that Ontario is a world leader in both neonatology and perinatology. We have one of the best systems in the world. We are constantly trying to improve that. That is the reason we have the report which he has been referring to. We have been making progress in implementing the terms of that report.

I want to say that I am quite surprised that, in his very first opportunity to rise in the House today, the member did not clarify for the House some of the details of the inaccurate information he gave to the House last Thursday.

Mr. Eves: The Ministry of Health has funded four modified level 3 perinatal centres in northern Ontario. The minister made reference to that in response to the initial question. However, to go on and quote her own report even further: “These units will exist only on paper until properly trained professionals are in place.”

The minister must increase training programs for these subspecialists so that perinatal units in the province can function and do not just exist on paper, to quote her own recommendations. When is the minister going to follow her own advice that she gave to the House on May 16 and do something about effective health care planning with respect to these specialties and perinatal care in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry is working very closely with the faculties of medicine to determine appropriate manpower planning strategies for across the province. As well, we have been working with the Ontario Medical Association and discussing these issues.

I am concerned that the member would rise in this House and not correct some of the false information in a question that was asked last week, as I know it is important for us to ensure that the information in question period that is asked here reflects --

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been listening to the answers of the Minister of Health. On two occasions she has suggested that a member provided inaccurate information. She has just now said “false information.” Surely that is unparliamentary language.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I was in consultation with the Clerk.

Mr. Harris: By way of assistance and clarification, I agree with the whip from the New Democratic Party. When you get to the word “false,” I think it is indeed unparliamentary, and I am sure the advice you are getting from the Clerk, Mr. Speaker, suggests the minister withdraw.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please explain?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes, thank you. The information that was presented to the House last week was incorrect. I brought that to the member’s attention and asked that he correct the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Case closed. New question?

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question, again for the Minister of Health. The buzzword she now uses is a system that she says is well managed and well planned. She uses that phrase over and over again, and I want to bring her back home to these patients, because the patients in this province are watching this program. They watch the minister at night, and as a result of the answers she gives at night, they start to write us letters asking, “What is going on here?”

I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: How can she talk about a well-planned system when the waiting lists for specific operations for knee surgery, for hip surgery, for ankle surgery, for heart surgery, are longer now than they were before; they are getting even longer, they are not getting any shorter; and some patients are having to wait for as long as two years for surgery which is essential for their health, for their wellbeing, for their ability to work and provide for their families and enjoy the good things in life?

How can the minister have the effrontery to talk about that being a well-planned system when the situation is palpably, clearly -- and we can graphically demonstrate it -- getting worse?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that in our excellent system of health care in this province there are many problems and there are many issues. The question today is how we respond to them. Do we throw money at them or do we work closely with the hospitals and the district health councils to make sure we have rationalized services in a community -- regional care, better hospital management in some cases, effective use of resources and planning techniques? I would say better manpower planning as well.

We have taken this second approach. We know that in the short term, as we work with hospitals individually, we will begin to address some of these great disparities in the length of lists. Clearly, having a two-week list at one hospital and a 28-month list at another hospital is unacceptable in our system. We are looking, through better planning, to make those kinds of changes by working with the hospitals cooperatively.

Mr. B. Rae: A heart patient does not want planning. A heart patient does not want rationalization. A heart patient wants care. Somebody wanting hip surgery does not want planning. Somebody wanting knee surgery does not want planning. What they want from the Minister of Health is the leadership that is going to allow them to get the care they need.

I would like to ask the minister what specific leadership and what specific --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: No, Mr. Speaker, they can try to try to shout me down; I do not mind.

What specific guarantees is the minister going to make? What specific steps is she going to take to make sure that the people I have talked about, the people who talk to me, the people who phone me at home on the weekend -- I cannot go back to them and say, “The Minister of Health says she wants to plan for you.” I want to know what they are supposed to do. What steps are they supposed to take, what steps are their physicians supposed to take to make sure they get the care they deserve in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want the Leader of the Opposition to know, and I believe he does, that I care very much about being able to resolve many of these problems as quickly as we can. Where we determine that there are waiting-list problems, and we know there are, we are meeting with those people who have advice and expertise to give us on how to resolve them in the short term, medium term and longer term.

Where we identify that a computerized bed registry would assist, we are moving to implement that. Where, as in cardiac care, we determine that there is a need to enhance the system through capacity, we are working very closely with the people who are advising us on how to do that. Where we determine that it is through independent planning in the hospitals, through expansion of programs in one area and not in another that we can look at how to reallocate some of those resources so that we can have a better approach, we are attempting to do that as well.

The approach we have taken is a consultative one in working closely with individual hospitals, working with the associations and the leadership of this province to resolve many of the problems that we have. But they are not simple problems, and it will not happen overnight.

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister of chaos.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister of what? Pardon?

Mr. Harris: The Minister of Health, I am sorry. After three years of her chaotic planning, we are now in the situation where Bill Payzant of North Bay gets a letter from the hospital notifying him that his hip replacement has been set back by an additional year. Cancelled for this July, it now goes to July 1989.

In the letter, the doctor goes on to explain that these delays are necessary for all patients. There is a very significant reduction in numbers necessary after July 1, producing long delays. However, he says neither this document nor the delays apply to patients who are from out of province or who are covered under the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I would like to know if the minister agrees with this kind of planning, as she is wont to talk about the need for planning. Is she suggesting that Mr. Payzant perhaps twin with somebody from Manitoba or Quebec who needs a replacement? The person can come to Ontario, because there is no problem there, and maybe Mr. Payzant can go to Manitoba or Quebec. Would that make a logical suggestion as to how he might get it done before he dies?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The letter that the member is referring to is one from the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, which clearly has the longest waiting list in this province, some 28 months. We are looking at the present time to see how we can best direct patients to hospitals with shorter waiting lists, because we know that they vary from some two weeks to that 28 months. We have to ask ourselves how this situation came about, and at the present time, we are looking at some of the factors that may have contributed to that very long waiting list.

Mr. Harris: I think the way it came about is fairly obvious: three years of chaotic planning by this government. That is what the problem is.

Since the minister always talks about good planning, let me give her a suggestion. I think the problem is very simple to solve. Would it not make sense for the Ministry of Health to provide the artificial joints to whatever hospital needs them? The reason the waiting list there is so long is, first, that hospital is so good, so her suggestion to go somewhere else that may not be as good really does not make much sense to me.

Second, they have been cut back because the hospital in its budget cannot afford the artificial joints. The doctor has time. The waiting room has time. The minister should not shake her head no. That is the reason. They cannot afford the $2,000 for the artificial hip.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr. Harris: Would it not make sense for the ministry to provide the artificial hips, available to all hospitals, and let them carry on and do the operations as the doctors and the hospitals have time?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We know that one of the difficulties is that individual hospitals maintain their own lists. While there is broad expertise across the province, there is not the kind of referral that would allow this to be done. One of the things in this particular hospital that we know is the cause of this is that an unapproved program by another hospital -- renting space in this hospital -- created at one point a surplus revenue. When that unapproved program was stopped, it was the decrease in the revenue that created the problem for this hospital.

To me, very clearly that is an issue of planning. Unless we have the kind of system where we plan, through the district health councils and through approval by the ministry, in advance of expansion of programs, we will see the longest waiting list occur where we have had poor planning.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Does the Leader of the Opposition want to ask his question now?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I met at lunchtime, as did some other members from my caucus, with a group of people who have marched all the way from Hamilton to see the Premier and to ask him to raise the rates for social assistance by some 25 percent. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why, so far, he has declined to meet these people, many of whom have walked for several days in order to come here to meet him.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is that the minister met with the group this morning.

Mr. B. Rae: That was not the question. They wanted to meet with the Premier; they did not want to meet with the minister. They wanted a chance to meet with the Premier at first hand.

Perhaps by way of supplementary I could ask the Premier this: Studies that have been done for the Thomson inquiry clearly and categorically show, on an irrefutable basis, that the level of benefits paid out to people who are either on general welfare assistance or family benefits, in real terms, has declined by as much as 30 per cent since the late 1970s, in the last 10 years.

Given that evidence, which is now before the government and before the province, I wonder if the Premier can tell us, does he not think it would be worth while for this province to raise rates by the 25 per cent being asked for by those people who have marched in from Hamilton? Does he not think that would be fair and that it would not preclude any other changes that Mr. Thomson might be recommending in the next few days?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I certainly understand the plight of a number of the people whom the honourable member is talking about, as does the minister. I am sure the minister has given him in the past and will do so again in the future the amount of increase in the social services budget over the last three years.

That being said, I am the last to argue that is enough, because there are real and legitimate cases of need, as we all recognize. That is why we asked Judge Thomson to look into the situation. We expect that report in the not-too-distant future, as he is looking fundamentally at a number of the questions the honourable member raises.

I am not in a position to respond to his request today, but we will look at the entire matter in the context of the Thomson inquiry.

Mr. B. Rae: That could take for ever. The people who met with us today said they did not want task forces and they did not want another committee; they wanted a response from the government on the substance of their claim. When it comes to choosing between meeting with the Premier and meeting with the minister, what they said is they did not want to meet the chopping block, they wanted to meet the butcher. That was the way it was put to us.

I would like to ask the Premier a simple question. The budget set down by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) calls for a further $500-million cut in government expenditures across the board and has no money specifically set aside for the Ministry of Community and Social Services in relation to an increase in social assistance. If the government is sincere about wanting to do anything about the Thomson inquiry, can the Premier tell us why no money was set aside in the budget specifically to introduce changes in our social assistance plans in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As in all matters, they ultimately end up as budgetary matters and there is some flexibility, as my honourable friend knows. We are awaiting the Thomson report, and cabinet will make a decision on how to respond to that at the appropriate time.

We expect that, and the minister could help me out, in the not-too-distant future, the fall perhaps, so it is not a question of waiting for ever. I am sure my honourable friend would want the government to make a well-thought-out response in the broad context, rather than just responding because there is a demonstration here today.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications.

There is a recent federal government report entitled Communications for the Twenty-first Century: Media and Messages in the Information Age, which estimates that the world’s stock of information is doubling every two years. Because our public libraries in Ontario play a key role in providing information to communities throughout Ontario, how is the ministry assisting the libraries in coping with this information explosion?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Approximately three years ago, we introduced, starting in Hamilton and now ending in Guelph, a telecommunications system which is called the Ontario public libraries information network. That system is essentially an interlibrary loan information system which links up all libraries and gives a good database on existing titles. I think right now we are aiming for about 500,000 titles and have even got into lending arrangements with libraries in the United States and some libraries in Japan, as we take a look at economic management. That particular system is now set up and ready to go.

Mrs. Stoner: In addition to the information volume, we are also dealing with a very rapidly changing technology. How is the ministry going to ensure that this network keeps pace with the hardware and software?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I think it is normal procedure in the ministry, once it has introduced a significant system change like OPLIN, to also do some pilot work on links that need to take place. We have now provided money for an automatic technology linkage to that existing network. The purpose of that particular amount of money is to take a look at new technologies. The technologies are not only in the form of, for example, printed database; we will also be taking a look at the technologies that exist in audiovisual, cassette, large print, a whole host of things that are so important, especially in our isolated libraries right across Ontario.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier.

During the election campaign he clearly and forcefully promised the people of Ontario that there would be no free trade deal if it weakened the auto pact, threatened Canada’s cultural identity, removed safeguards from agriculture, permitted unrestricted foreign investment, prevented reduction of regional economic disparities and did not include a binding dispute settlement mechanism. On election night, the Premier said the citizens of Ontario had endorsed his six bottom-line conditions.

Since none of the bottom-line conditions has been met and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) now says a constitutional challenge is probably impossible, what is the Premier of Ontario going to do to prevent this sellout of Canada from taking place?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right. We put forward our position and we do not support the trade deal for those reasons and a variety of others. As the Attorney General has shared with us, he is reviewing all the options at the present time with respect to the legal powers inherent thereunder, and we will share those views with the member when the final decisions have been made.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is it not a fact that it never was the Premier’s intention to take any forceful actions

-- as New Democrats and others have suggested to him, giving some examples as well in this House -- to prevent this sellout, that he is just about ready to be back on side with the corporate interests that want this agreement in Canada, and that in fact what he has done is lied and deceived the people of Ontario to gain election votes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is no.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

On July 7, 1986, referring to social assistance, the minister promised to forge a system which can face the challenge of the 1990s and beyond. He has consulted with the municipalities and workers in the process as promised, and those same partners involving municipalities are anxiously awaiting the results of this long process that started as long ago as 18 months. In fact, the clients of that process, those involved in the march against poverty, including the London Union of Unemployed Workers, are in front of us today at Queen’s Park.

The statement was made in July 1986. The report was originally due in 1987, then later in 1987, and now it is delayed until the fall of 1988. Many of us are trying to be professional about this. Does it really take four months for a written report to be put in a format that the public, the professionals and the people in need can understand and that the minister can work with?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be well aware of the fact that the anticipated time to complete this review and the report has been expanded considerably, primarily because of the reaction to the opportunity to have some input into the whole program. The member might be aware of the fact that 1,500 briefs were received by the committee, where in the initial stages the committee itself indicated it expected maybe 300 or 400. Therefore, there has been good reason for the length of time.

As a matter of fact, where one day had been set aside for public input in a number of the major urban areas across the province, the committee was asked to come back for three, four and in some cases five days in order to allow the local groups the opportunity to make their input. Given the scope of it, that was accepted and it has taken longer.

The report is now completely written by the committee and by Judge Thomson with the exception of the executive

summary. My understanding is the report runs to something like about 600 to 700 pages. Because it was written by a number of groups, it needs to be edited so the language flows rather easily. It is designed primarily for public consumption, not for professional consumption. It has to be edited. It has to be translated. We made a commitment in this government to translate those kinds of reports. It has to be printed and bound. I have indicated very clearly that the moment the report is delivered to me personally, I will make it a public document.

The information available to me at the present time is that it will be available either in late August or in early September. I will release it as soon as I get it, but I have not imposed any time restraint on the committee itself in order to make its determinations and deliver the report.

Mrs. Cunningham: I really think a time frame should have been imposed and I think four months is too long. The minister stated that this report is not for the professionals, but for the public. I would suggest they have to work together to make things happen. The London city council is on record, very recently, as demanding that the minister complete the report immediately. There are a lot of people waiting. Professionals in the field know what can be done immediately and we know what that framework is. Not much seems to be happening with regard to workplace day care and sometimes transportation needs.

My question to the minister is, after waiting for two years, are we going to receive a report that will contain dreams and promises or will it contain solid recommendations that he is prepared, at that point, to implement immediately?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable member, with her reference to day care, that when we formed the current government the total budget for day care in Ontario was in the neighbourhood of $88 million. This year it will be $288 million.

I also point out to the honourable member that when we asked Judge Thomson and his committee to accept the responsibility to do this review, we asked that he come up with a report and recommendations that were doable, that could be implemented. I do not know what the content of the report is. I have deliberately asked not to be advised until I can make it public.

However, I understand Judge Thomson and the committee will come in with a report that has three different time frames: one where recommendations can be implemented almost immediately; those that --

Mr. B. Rae: Either you’ve seen the report or you haven’t. Come on, you can’t do --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have not seen the report.

Mr. B. Rae: How do you know what’s in the report? You either know what’s in it or you don’t. Don’t talk about the time frames as if you don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have not seen the report.

The report will also contain some changes that will require federal-provincial agreement. That will take a little longer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You are just wasting your own time.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

In my area, I have received quite a large number of complaints from people who are residing in retirement communities. They tell me they are being charged maintenance and operating expenses that are accelerating greatly. They tell me the owner of the retirement community can set almost whatever he wants for expenses. They tell me they have asked for verification of how these amounts are arrived at and get no satisfactory answers. Some of these people are telling me that this year alone they have faced 40 per cent increases in their operating expenses, for which they have no explanation.

My question to the minister is, is there any way to control the problems these people are facing in these retirement communities across the province, and in my own riding, under the current system of rent review?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: For anyone in this situation, there is protection provided through the rent review process. Any rent increases that are above the guideline, which is 4.7 per cent, are in fact subject to rent review. Under those circumstances, the landlord would be required to reveal the sources of his figures, including the sources of the operating costs the member is describing today.

I understand that the members of the community he is talking about have already talked with rent review officers about this. If there are any increases above the 4.7 per cent, then the landlord will be required to reveal the sources of those operating costs in order for a determination to be made.

Mr. Owen: Will there be any way in which the answers the landlord is supposedly giving can be audited? The people tell me they have had situations where directors’ fees have been charged at $100,000 or charges have been made for gasoline for vehicles that would mean the vehicles would have had to be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Is there any way in which the owners of these places could be forced to give the figures and have them audited so the people in these communities can be properly satisfied?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The arrangements about disclosure are actually supposed to be part of the contract in the lease between the landlord and the community if the number that results is under the guideline of 4.7 per cent. If it is over that guideline, then indeed the rent review legislation does require the landlords to demonstrate, and we have the access and ability to audit the numbers they give us about increases that are above that.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Barbara Van Gorder is a single-parent mother with one child. She is now living in an apartment in North York. She has lived at the same address for 10 years. What advice would the minister give to her? She faces a rent increase at that apartment of 48 per cent over the next two years. She is on a list that has grown from 21,000 families waiting for assisted housing to now over 33,000 families waiting for assisted housing. She lives in a municipality where the vacancy rate is 0.2 per cent.

What is the minister’s advice to her? The advice she gets from those who are in charge of assisted housing is that she merely faces financial hardship, that she is not homeless and is not a victim of violent abuse. What is the minister’s advice for her?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is because of the kind of story the member tells, the fact that there are many people in this city and this province who are facing the kind of difficulty he describes of not being able to afford the housing in which they live, that our government has made the commitment to make sure that there is going to be much more housing for people to choose from, a greater variety of housing and more housing choices for the people of this province. That is the reason we have $2 billion to be put into the nonprofit program, to make sure there is housing for families, for elderly people and for single people all over the province.

I understand that is not the fastest comfort to someone facing this situation right now. But it is because of my awareness of the problem the member describes that we have made the commitment we have made and are putting the resources we are putting into this process. We are working with municipalities to increase the options for people all over the province to make sure there are more choices for people all over the province who face difficulties in affording the housing they are in.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not think Barbara is going to appreciate the answer as being much comfort to her. How does the minister explain, then, that in the three years her party has formed the government in Ontario, the waiting lists for assisted housing have gone from 21,858 families to 33,588 families? Even the vacancy rate in Toronto has gone from 0.6 per cent, which is not very good, to 0.2 per cent, which is even worse.

How does the minister explain that to her and how does the minister abide by a system of allocating assisted housing which says to this woman and her daughter that because they face only financial hardship -- they are not on the street and she has not been beaten up lately -- she does not qualify for some kind of assistance? How does the minister explain that to her?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: One of the things this government did that I am extremely proud of is increase eligibility for assistance with housing to single people as well as to families.

I think it is extremely important that people have access to housing but I am not going to pretend that all the housing we need in order to help people is already here. What we are doing is more than any government in this province has ever done. We are working enormously hard with all our resources of money, of time, of land and of co-operation with the various levels of government that are going to make this happen.

I understand that there are people who face severe hardship. It is because of my understanding of those people and what it must be like to face that hardship that I am working as hard as I am and that this government is so committed to making sure that people have places to live that they can afford to live in.

REAL ESTATE CLOSINGS

Mr. Cousens: The Minister of Housing sure has not solved the problem of the lady who asked the question.

I have a question of the Attorney General.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: That was no lady. That was me. I ain’t no lady. I ain’t even no gentleman.

Mr. Cousens: I stand corrected.

My question is to the Attorney General. The Metro Toronto sheriff is just having an impossible time keeping up with the deluge that is coming especially at this time, one of the busiest times of the year, for house closings. Last week, because of the cutbacks in his budget, it would appear he was not able to bring in overtime staff to assist him with the deluge that comes in at this time of the year. He put a sign up in his office saying, “The Toronto sheriff will not guarantee same-day service any more.”

Now, at the busiest time, there is no doubt that today and tomorrow lawyers will be lining up. They will be trying to get searches done. They will be trying to get everything in place for those who are closing deals. I would hate to see people lose their deals because of the problems that are being brought on by the Attorney General’s budget cuts that are coming down through the system. Has the Attorney General added any overtime staff so there will be same-day services for the people who are looking for them?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) is responsible for the registry office and the land titles office in our system, but assuming the member is referring to the possibility that the sheriff may be asked to search executions before a deal can close, the reality is that we are providing that service.

Executions can be searched, as the honourable member being a member of the cloth would not of course know, and are often conducted some weeks before the actual closing takes place, and then simply updated. I believe those updates can occur in a reasonably prompt way. It is true, of course, that the end of the month is the favourite time for the closing of transactions. I must frankly tell the honourable member that we will not be able to staff our office on a monthly basis simply to meet a peak demand that occurs one day a month.

Mr. Cousens: No. I appreciate the spirit of the answer. One of the problems we have is to get answers to very difficult and detailed problems. There would be nothing worse than for someone who has a house purchase to close on June 1, and because of delays in the sheriff’s office, not to be able to get the deal closed in time. Now all they are allowed to have is one day in which to complete that transaction.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission has recommended that the writ-of-execution period be extended to 10 days. The Attorney General we have here now brought in a bill last April -- it has been on the records of the House for over a year -- that would extend it to 10 days. It is now Bill 6 in Orders and Notices in this House.

On the one hand, the government is squeezing the sheriffs’ offices so they are not allowed to bring in the staff they need to handle the large number of transactions, and on the other hand, the Attorney General has legislation that he could be bringing to this House to solve the problem, giving a 10-day period in which these executions could be done. Does the Attorney General have any plans to help solve this problem?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member’s question, which comes from a close reading of the Toronto Star, reveals that he has not read the entire article. What we are doing in responding to peak periods, to which I referred the honourable member, particularly at the month-end, is using overtime, but in a period of constraint, overtime cannot be a regular feature of our administration.

Mr. Breaugh: Period of what?

Mr. B. Rae: Restraint? What restraint?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Certainly in the Ministry of the Attorney General we are exhibiting constraint every day. I recommend it. I recommend constraint – restraint -- restraint or constraint to the research budget of the New Democratic Party. I want to encourage the honourable member who asked the question, who exercises restraint and constraint by not relying on his research budget and reading the newspapers. That is what all this is about.

I want the honourable member to know that I understand his point. The sheriff’s office is trying to respond at these peak periods that occur once a month by using staff on an overtime basis. I will keep it closely monitored and will advise the honourable member from time to time.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. The tenants at 55 Woolley Street, Cambridge, had a rent review decision handed down on January 14, 1988. The decision did not state a deadline as to when the tenants must be given their rebates. A deadline is only an option given to rent review administrators under

section 3.18 of the Rent Review Operating Guide. The landlord has refused to pay the tenants the rebate money for more than four months, and the tenants are left with lengthy court proceedings as their only means of collecting their rebates.

What action will the minister take to help the tenants at 55 Woolley Street to ensure that these tenant families quickly receive their rent rebates?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I do not have the information on that specific case, but of course I will be very glad to work with them to make sure that they get their rebates as quickly as possible.

Mr. Farnan: Will the Minister of Housing give this House a firm pledge that she will change

section 3.18 of the Rent Review Operating Guide, which deals with the enforcement of ministry orders, so that all rent rebate orders must set a specific time frame in which landlords must either pay the rebate to the tenants or the tenants can deduct the rebated amount from the current rent paid?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am prepared to look at it and I take it seriously.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Health one more time, since she is responsible for planning and responsible for approving the way hospitals fund their money, if she thinks it is fair that the only reason a man living in North Bay, Ontario, the richest province in Canada, cannot get his hip replaced this year is because he indeed lives and has paid his taxes for 65 years in Ontario. Does the minister think it is fair that somebody from any one of the other nine provinces, which most would argue are not as rich as Ontario, can come in to the best orthopaedic hospital, the best orthopaedic surgeon in Canada, and get an operation without waiting,

whereas if you live in Ontario you have to wait? Is that fair?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important to note that just a few blocks away from the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, in a very fine hospital with very fine surgeons, the waiting period is some two weeks following a consultation.

It seems to me that when we know waiting lists are not something new in Ontario, nor are they new in Canada, nor worldwide, we have a situation here where we have a waiting list that goes from two weeks on one hand to 28 months on the other. We have very fine surgeons right across this province. What we are attempting to do, as we address this in the short term, is to make sure that we do not have the independent ad hockery which the member’s previous government was noted for, so that we can solve this problem once and for all by working with the hospitals and planning appropriately.

Mr. Harris: I do not understand how her planning solves things when each month she plans, the problem gets worse. It has done that for over 36 months now. Obviously, there is something wrong with the planning. I would ask her again if she thinks, as she approves the plans of the hospitals, that it is fair that a hospital will do hip replacements for people outside of province and yet the only reason a patient like Bill Payzant is being rejected is because he lives in Ontario. Why is it that nine other provinces can afford to pay for the hip replacements at a hospital here in Ontario when Ontario cannot afford it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This really does relate to the question that was asked last week about a patient in Ontario, where the procedure was not available in Ontario and she was directed and the Ontario health insurance plan paid to make sure she received that treatment outside Ontario.

We have many patients who come to Ontario for numerous treatments. We are part of not only an interprovincial but an international network. I am very proud of the fact that people come here for needed care when those services are not available in their own jurisdictions. That is part of how this works.

What we are attempting to do is make sure that we have services available for the residents of Ontario as close to home as possible and on a planned and well-managed basis so that they do not have waiting lists which are in some cases two weeks and in other cases 28 months. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We are moving to correct the bad planning of the past to make sure that in the future we manage our resources efficiently and effectively.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask you to look at the Orders and Notices of this assembly. Four questions were placed by me to the Ministry of Housing on February 9, 1988. That is 108 days ago. We still do not have an answer from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). We do not get answers in the House in question period, and we have no answer to those questions.

Mr. Wildman: What is the rule?

Mr. Cousens: It is 14 days. I just ask the honourable Speaker, who has done an excellent job today, to somehow get the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) to come through and answer those questions.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise to correct the record of a statement I made in the Legislature last Thursday, whereby I believe I said, and I do not have Hansard in front of me, that the Ministry of Health refused the $20,000 that McMaster University was seeking for some safety equipment with respect to its laser surgery. What I should have said is that the ministry, by its policy, has in effect forced the hospital to forego this safety equipment. I did subsequently learn that the hospital has not made a formal request for that $20,000 worth of equipment, although Dr.

Stopps had requested the same from the medical advisory committee of the hospital, and the medical advisory committee of the hospital had indicated to him that they did not see how they could ask for $20,000 when the Ministry of Health was asking them to eliminate their deficit of $900,000 for last year.

PETITIONS

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from a group which calls itself Peterborough Against Impaired Driving or PAID. It is addressed:

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

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

“We are a group of citizens who are greatly concerned with the incidence of drinking and driving on provincial highways. We are working to lower this incidence.

“We urge the government of Ontario to do all it can to assist us and others like us in our important volunteer work.

“We urge that you, Your Honour, and members of the Legislature take note of the week of June 12 to 18, inclusive, which is officially designated Peterborough Against Impaired Driving Week.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I think this one is in order.

“To the honourable, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to the municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Black: All done.

Mr. Wildman: With respect, the government has not implemented the last part of that.

The Deputy Speaker: Just read the petition.

Mr. Wildman: This is signed by approximately 30 residents of Ontario. Also, I have similar petitions from three others stating that they are against Sunday openings and believe that the issue should be resolved by the government, not the municipalities. I have signed the petitions.

ABORTION

Mr. Jackson: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“We ask the Legislature to consider the views of 38 students from Assumption Secondary School in Burlington, who have written letters which read in part as follows:

“‘The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down Canada’s abortion law, leaving Canadian pre-born children without legal protection.

“‘However, the court also ruled that parliament does have the right to pass laws protecting the lives of unborn children;

“‘I respectfully request that you accept your responsibility and quickly enact effective laws to protect the unborn from the moment of conception;

“‘Any weak, compromising Legislature which fails to protect the unborn at all stages is unacceptable.’”

That has my signature as well, on behalf of the 38 students at Assumption school.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Owen: I have a petition here addressed:

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

It indicates that these people, 1,266 in all, are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario, and it is submitted under my signature.

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition with 40 signatures of residents of Toronto, many of them from my own riding. It is on the subject of Sunday shopping.

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

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

“Whereas it is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support this resolution and have signed it myself, and I am honoured to present it to the Legislature.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Eves: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition from Maranatha Christian Reformed Church in Cambridge. It relates to Sunday Shopping. It reads:

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

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

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

The petition is signed by 62 members of the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church. I have added my name to the petition and support it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GUN REPLICA SALE PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. Farnan moved first reading of Bill 145,

An Act to prohibit the Sale of Gun Replicas.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Farnan: The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the sale of replicas of guns that might reasonably be mistaken for real guns in the commission of a crime. This is in response to a tragic incident that occurred in the neighbouring community of Brantford last October, where a local man was shot dead by police after he pointed a replica handgun at them.

Another incident in Cambridge led me to --

The Deputy Speaker: Just a very brief statement, please, to explain.

Mr. Farnan: I think I have probably done that, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: You have. Yes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Farnan: OK.

The Deputy Speaker: We have further chances to debate later on.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved third reading of Bill 98,

An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not have any comments to make at this time.

Mr. McCague: When we had a discussion on this bill the other day, the minister assured this House it was not his intention to exercise the powers that are given to him under subsection 6(2) of this bill, and that is the power to prohibit the sale of farm produce on King’s highways.

I accept that the minister says it was not his intention to interfere with any of those. However, I think civil servants reading this

section of the bill might well want to exercise that or might feel it in their bones to stop somebody selling in what is presently a legitimate setting as far as the grandfathering would be concerned.

I would like to have the minister repeat today that it is not his intention to have either him or his staff prohibit the sale of farm produce, especially if it has been historically sold from that point along King’s highway. Maybe the minister would just give us a little further assurance today, before we proceed with this bill.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I said to the member last week that it is not our intention. On only two or three occasions in the past three years have matters of this kind been brought to our attention, and in each case they were resolved.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister does not usually respond until the end. This is questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments on the member’s statement? Do any more members want to debate? Nobody else wants to debate. In that case, the minister’s response.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think I really have responded, perhaps prematurely. As I indicated, there is no intention to run these fruit stands, etc., out of business. There have been two or three occasions over the years where in the interests of public safety some negotiated settlement had to be reached. That is all we are attempting to do. We simply do not want people establishing any kind of roadside stand that would in any way impede public safety, or indeed their own safety. I again offer the member that assurance.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

The Deputy Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I move that

section 41 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection --

The Deputy Chairman: One moment, please. I am just asking if there are any other sections.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am sorry. I have an amendment to subsection 41(5).

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments, questions or amendments, and if so, to which sections?

Mr. Jackson: Can we have the complete amendment read for the record?

The Deputy Chairman: When we get to that part of it, we will. I am just asking if there are any other sections to be amended besides subsection 41(5)?

Mr. Jackson: I have an amendment to

section 24 and also an amendment to the government amendment in

section 41.

The Deputy Chairman: Then sections 24 and 41 are to be commented upon for amendment. Are there any other sections on which an honourable member would like to make a comment or ask a question or amend?

Sections 1 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 24:

The Deputy Chairman: I believe the member for Burlington South wishes to comment or has an amendment with respect to the section.

Mr. Jackson moves that the table to rule 4 of subsection 206a(7) be amended by striking out:

“483,000 or more persons -- 21”

in the 20th line and inserting in lieu thereof,

“483,000 or more, up to and including 582,999 persons -- 21

“583,000 or more persons -- 22.”

Mr. Jackson: Since the government has requested that this bill be reopened and brought back into committee of the whole House, we felt one

section of this bill in particular was not given the proper hearing it deserved.

Specifically, the amendment I am tabling is building upon the amendment the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) presented in committee. It specifically addresses increasing the number of trustees who would be lost by the Metropolitan Separate School Board. As has been widely documented, the board would have lost three trustees under the government’s original bill. Because of the member for Scarborough West, the formula was adjusted in the table, which increased by one additional and meant their net loss would be two.

The purpose of this amendment would be to further narrow that loss to only one trustee, which would allow them greater equity and opportunity to arrange their boundaries in a more responsible manner. It is well documented that Metro separate trustees will be required to represent some 6,000 to 8,000 more electors than their public school counterparts.

Given the specific climate in Metro Toronto under the recently completed Bill 30 accommodation negotiations, it is apparent that a more equitable treatment could be achieved by this amendment if it were approved by all members of the House. It is a glaring inequity. It is disproportionate. Therefore, we ask that all members of the House support the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Just for my own clarification, if I might, it says 206a(7). I am looking at it and it seems that what you are changing is in

Mr. Jackson: Subsection 5.

The Deputy Chairman: Subsection 6, subsection 5 or subsection 4. I am not sure just exactly -- is it at the top of page 8? Do you see my quandary?

Mr. Jackson: Yes. I believe it should be rule 4 which makes reference to “combined separate school board,” so it would be subsection 6, rule 4, the table set out there.

The Deputy Chairman: At the top of page 8 of the bill? Is that correct?

Mr. Jackson: Yes, that is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps you will just go with me carefully so that I make sure I am not doing it incorrectly. It is

section 206a, subsection 6, rule 4. Is that correct?

Mr. Jackson: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: It is the line -- I do not count that down to be the 20th line. I am just concerned to make sure we are speaking of the same part. It is where it indicates in the table “483,000 or more persons – 21.”

Mr. Jackson: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: That is at the top of page 8 of Bill 125. That is not the 20th line down, though.

Mr. Jackson: Well, whatever numbered line that is, that would be the line we would like to insert.

The Deputy Chairman: That is right. I just want to be sure.

Mr. Jackson: That is correct.

The Deputy Chairman: I will have to speak to the table with respect to amending what you have put before me. In the meantime, we will go ahead and have any comments or questions.

You have heard from the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) who has put forward the amendment. Are there any comments or remarks with respect to that?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I see it, the intent of the member’s amendment is to maintain the status quo with reference to the representation on the Metropolitan Separate School Board. Members should know that the intent of this legislation from the outset has been to change the method on which trustee representation is based, from one which for many years has been based on assessment or wealth to one based on population.

In his comments, the member made reference to the fact that trustees on the Metropolitan Separate School Board have to represent something in the neighbourhood of 6,000 more ratepayers than would be the case of those trustees on the Toronto Board of Education, but I think it is important that members be aware that the Metro separate board is one that is organized on an upper-tier basis, including all municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto.

By the same token, the public boards in Toronto have a two-tier system by which they too have a Metro board which represents something like 1.5 million ratepayers. So I do not think there is any validity in that argument. In fact, trustees on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board represent more ratepayers than those on MSSB.

We put in place a consistent method for establishing the number of trustees. We have put flexibility into the bill so that each board could add up to two members to its board so there would be some flexibility in terms of making determinations of representation. We believe the table we have in place is fair and equitable.

This matter was given a thorough airing at the standing committee on social development, and an amendment was put forward and accepted. Frankly, this is a rehash of the same issue that was before the committee and the government does not support this amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak with respect to that amendment? If not, may I have just a few more minutes to clarify the exact line and the appropriate rule -- it will just be a moment.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee’s indulgence with respect to this. It is my understanding that Mr. Jackson has moved that the table to rule 4 of subsection 206a(6) be amended. Do I have the agreement of the House that the amendment will read subsection 206a(6)?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there anyone else who wishes to comment with respect to this particular amendment? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall

section 24 stand as part of the bill?

Section 24 agreed to.

Sections 25 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 41:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ward moves that

section 41 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where a municipality within the area of jurisdiction of a board was divided into wards on February 1, 1988, the board may, by resolution made on or before August 10, 1988, establish the wards as electoral areas for the purposes of the election of members of the board in the regular elections to be held in 1988 under the Municipal Elections Act.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, this comes about as a result of provisions in the Ottawa-Carleton legislation which permitted the structuring of the municipal boundaries into zones for electoral purposes. Originally, the

section was not permissive, did not include the fact that a board may or may not choose to exercise this option.

I should point out to members of the opposition, particularly the critics, that when we originally provided copies of this amendment, the operative date was July 1. Members will recall that in committee we changed that to August 10. The member for Burlington South, I believe, was coming forward with an amendment to that date. I just indicate to him that, prior to arriving here today, we too made the determination that August 10 should be the operative date.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be supporting this amendment, but I would like to make a couple of comments about the process that has been used to arrive at Bill 125.

Members will remember that this bill was originally Bill 76, I think, which was announced before the Legislature came into session and then introduced. Trustees across the province were quite upset with the original form of the bill. There did not need to be much consultation, because we could hear trustees across the province from their boardrooms and from their committee meetings yelling and screaming at the government over the original version of that bill.

Before we got to second reading of that bill, the government decided it would withdraw the bill and reintroduce it under a new name, Bill 125. Then the bill went out to committee for public hearings, amendments were made and it was going to come back for third reading, but instead the government found a further mistake and had to bring in this amendment. Then, we understand, as the minister just said, his original proposed amendment erred in that it had July 1, 1988. Today the government brought in a different version of the amendment, August 10, 1988.

I think the minister should be somewhat embarrassed at the process that has been used to arrive at this final form of the bill. It reminds me of some of the pieces of legislation we dealt with under the Ministry of Health. I said then, when we dealt with the Mental Health Act and a couple of other pieces of legislation, when the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) was the minister and we had about 10 different versions before we finally came up with the final version, and withdrawals of bills and reintroductions of bills, that heads should roll for the way that legislation had been dealt with.

I am pleased to be able to support this amendment, but I hope in the future the minister will be able to get his act together before he introduces a bill, then has to withdraw it, reintroduce it and do all the things he has done with this piece of legislation.

I gather the bill in its final form, after it is approved today, will be somewhat acceptable. Why the proper consultation, examination and drafting were not done long before this is beyond me. I hope the minister is embarrassed; he should be embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am always delighted to listen to the interventions of my good friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), whom I have sat with on many, many occasions in committee.

I would just say that at the time Bill 76 was introduced, we made it clear that further legislation would be necessary because it did not include provisions for Metropolitan Toronto, since that was not part and parcel of the process that was used in the joint committee recommendations that were undertaken by the various trustee associations.

He made some reference to the haste in which this matter is being dealt with. This issue was first raised in 1978 and has been the subject of many studies and many concerns expressed by those who participate at the local level in trustee and school board governance. I can only say it had been my hope and my expectation at the time Bill 76 was introduced that we could move to second reading and that we could move quickly into committee, but other pressing matters made it rather difficult for us to reach that stage within this forum.

As a result, over concern at the amount of time that had elapsed, we chose to bring in an amended bill, using much of the written concerns that had been expressed by various trustees and various municipalities throughout this province.

I, for one, firmly believe in the committee system we use here. I do not think for a moment that the member for Windsor-Riverside, or the member for Burlington South, or myself or anyone else here, has a monopoly on good ideas. I think the whole purpose of having public input is always to refine and to improve a piece of legislation.

If the member expects me to be embarrassed by that, I suggest he should be embarrassed if he thinks a process of consultation is only one of giving lipservice rather than trying to improve on what we do here.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would point out that one of the reasons the government eventually listened to some of these amendments was that we certainly made it clear that if the bill was not more acceptable, the bill simply would not be passed in time for the municipal elections this fall.

In the original form that the bill was introduced to the Legislature, it certainly would have been totally unacceptable. We made it very clear we would not allow that bill to proceed in that form, so we forced, obviously, the minister to listen. If the Liberal government was less arrogant and listened more closely to the people it was consulting with, it would have been able to bring in a bill that was more acceptable in the first place. Thank goodness we have opposition parties, which force this government to listen.

Mr. Jackson: I can bring the discussion back to the specific amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: That is an excellent idea.

Mr. Jackson: Before I do that, I would like to comment about what the member for Windsor-Riverside said about the surprise that this

section 41 amendment is still not in the same form in which we were advised on Friday it would be tabled before committee of the whole House. It seems to illustrate very clearly the government’s approach in this matter. As the member has expressed some concern about these 11th hour amendments, I can enlighten him that the minister has even approached us about further amendments with respect to French-language minority rights representation and certain personal authorities that the minister might have in order to make those decisions during this first election year.

With regard to the minister’s statement that he supports the committee system, I will be pleased then to gain his support to refer Bill 100, which I believe is slated for Wednesday, to the standing committee on social development. Since he is so supportive of the committee system, I look forward to his support in moving that bill on a somewhat related matter to the social development committee. I notice the minister is nodding approval. I appreciate his kind consideration.

To go back to the amendment, we support the amendment. Those of us who were present for the social development committee last Wednesday, heard the concerns of the Ottawa board. This amendment will provide additional flexibility regarding the distribution of trustees within that board.

The amendment to this amendment which I have served notice of has now been covered, now that I understand the minister has included the adjustment to “on or before the 10th day of August.” That was an amendment which I placed last Wednesday and it was an amendment I was prepared to table today in the House, since the minister’s original motion had indicated the first day of July.

We did this for very clear reasons. The way the government and the mandarins at the Mowat Block have configured trustee representation for this fall’s election, the enumeration process will occur rather late this year. The minister was calling upon boards, both in Bill 76 and Bill 125, to make a determination before they had those actual figures and numbers. We are pleased that support was given to my amendment, which moved that date to August 10.

We are very hopeful that all school boards in Ontario will have received the results of the enumeration and therefore will be able to make initial decisions based on actual numbers as presented in the enumeration data, instead of the wild-guess system that was proposed in the government’s legislation.

We fully support the amendment and we fully support the minister’s amendment to his amendment, which we had indicated we would be calling forward today in the House.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported one bill with a certain amendment.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Mr. Polsinelli, on behalf of Hon. R. F. Nixon, moved second reading of Bill 117,

An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Polsinelli: The 1988 Ontario Loan Act will provide the government with the authority to borrow up to $2.8 billion for provincial purposes. These funds will be used to meet financing requirements, including the repayment of the principal of maturing debt. Although the net cash requirements for 1988-89 are substantially lower than in previous years, borrowing requirements are higher. This is the result of increased debt retirements, a provision for Canada pension plan borrowing on behalf of Ontario Hydro and an increase in liquid reserves.

The primary source of borrowing under this act will be the teachers’ superannuation fund. Provision is also made for the government to borrow from the Canada pension plan investment fund or the public capital markets, should that be appropriate. The province is currently issuing Treasury bills and intends to continue tenders at current levels. The act provides that any unused borrowing authority will lapse on September 30, 1989.

Mr. Harris: This bill authorizes, I guess, $2.8 trillion -- is that right -- or $2.8 billion? I lose track of these numbers. Is that $2.8 billion or $2.8 trillion? How much money is that? There are so many zeros there, I cannot keep track. Whether it is $2.8 billion or $2.8 trillion, I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can break down for us a little better why $2.8 billion is required this year, how much of it is refinances, if any, and how much of it is new financing and give us a little more detail as to what categories they go into.

Mr. Laughren: I thought it appropriate to ask the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) a couple of questions, as we are aiding in his apprenticeship program here this afternoon. One is to what extent the $2.8 gazillion, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) would call it, the $2.8 billion, includes the borrowing from the Canada pension plan for housing purposes? If it does include the borrowings for the housing as announced in the budget, why is that not included in the deficit for the province?

Mr. Polsinelli: I should point out to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that this does not include borrowing from the Canada pension plan for housing purposes. I believe the government has decided that the Ontario Housing Corp. would be allowed to borrow directly from the Canada pension plan funds for housing purposes. The 1988 Ontario Loan Act does not include that element of expenditure.

With respect to the member for Nipissing, I would be pleased to break down the $2.8 billion that is required, and that is a two, with an eight, two zeros and another six zeros following that. It is broken down as follows: The 1988-89 net cash requirements are $473 million, as pointed out by the Treasurer in his budget; retirements are $920 million, and members will notice that is substantially more than was retired in previous years; and the increase in liquid reserves is $282 million. That brings us to a total of $1,675,000,000.

I have zero seconds to complete the rest, and I would be pleased to do it later.

Mr. Laughren: It really is amazing that the Treasury could come forward with this $2.8-billion borrowing bill, already having announced $2 billion in borrowing from Canada pensions for housing purposes, and because it has simply moved the pea from under one shell to under another shell, the government does not have to consider it to be part of the provincial deficit. I would ask the member for Yorkview, when he responds, if he would give us in his own inimitable words just how he makes the distinction between borrowing $2 billion from Canada pensions for housing purposes, which is not considered part of the formal debt structure of the province,

whereas this is. I know the member for Yorkview could say, “Well, that’s because the borrowing is going to be done directly by the Ontario Housing Corp.”

I suppose, now that I am on my feet and thinking -- I was not intending to take

part in this debate this afternoon -- the member for Yorkview would argue that Ontario Hydro’s debt is not considered part of the Ontario debt, the provincial debt, either. We will see if the member for Yorkview can come up with any better rationale than I have given him to work with already.

We know this bill is primarily designed to borrow money from the Canada pension plan and the teachers’ superannuation fund, and therein lies the rub. The teachers’ superannuation fund is a huge fund. The last time we checked, it had something like $10 billion in assets, which are expected to rise to, I think, $15 billion by the end of this decade; so it is a big fund and it is growing.

The government has decided, totally separate from this bill, although it is hard to avoid commenting on it, that teachers are going to have to pay another two per cent into that fund in order to make it viable, despite the fact that it has $10 billion in assets and is growing rapidly.

All the assets of the teachers’ superannuation fund are invested in nonmarketable government of Ontario securities, as I recall. It is not because the teachers want it that way, necessarily. It is because the government has decreed that is the way it is going to be, that the teachers have no say in the way in which the funds are disposed. They have no say in negotiations on their pension plan; they have no say in the structure of the fund itself -- absolutely none.

Then the government says, “Even though you don’t have any say in any aspect of it, even though it is your pension plan, even though it is your money that’s funding it, we are going to borrow from it as we see fit and you are going to invest it in our nonmarketable securities.”

It really is unfair. Admittedly, the previous government structured the teachers’ superannuation fund. Nevertheless, they did it, and this government is continuing that practice, I suppose because it sees it as irresistible to be able to borrow big bucks from the teachers’ superannuation fund.

The teachers could make a lot more money if they were not restricted by the legislation that requires them to put their money into nonmarketable government securities, and the rate of return they get is totally set by the government. It has very little to do with market conditions.

Since 1980, the teachers’ superannuation fund has never had an annual rate of return in excess of 11 per cent; for the last eight years. As a matter of fact, I will give the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) the numbers. Since 1980, it has never had more than an 11 per cent return. Here is what the top pension fund in each year received. The member for Yorkview might know there is a fund measurement firm called SEI Financial Services that measures the performance of pension funds. It takes a different one each year.

Here is how the top ones rated in the last few years: in 1980, 25.3 per cent return; in 1981, 12.7 percent; in 1982, 40.3 percent; in 1983, 24 percent; in 1984, 15.9 per cent; in 1985, 29.3 per cent; and in 1986, 17.6 per cent. Those were the rates of return the top pension funds received.

While those numbers were out there floating about, all the way up to 40 per cent, the teachers’ superannuation fund never got more than 11 per cent, because the government decreed it that way. That is the top fund. To be fair, I am using the top pension fund, but even if I used the average pension funds, they had a 15 per cent return in four out of those seven years I just gave to the member. In only one year did they have a rate of return lower than that of the teachers’ superannuation fund.

Here is the government putting the teachers’ superannuation fund in a straitjacket, not allowing it to get its maximum return, doing that with one hand and with the other hand forcing the teachers to put another two per cent into the fund, presumably to make it actuarially viable.

I hope the member for Yorkview will respond, because he is borrowing money from that fund. The teachers have no choice whatsoever. I wonder if the member for Yorkview, when he responds, can tell us what he thinks is fair about telling the teachers, first, that they have no say whatsoever over their fund. They cannot even negotiate it. Second, they have no say in the structure of the way the teachers’ superannuation fund is set up. Third, they have no say in where their moneys are invested. Their moneys: They pay them in; they come off their salaries. It is already eight per cent and it is going up to 10 per cent of the teachers’ earnings, if the government gets its way.

Here the government is, putting all these restrictions on how they run their fund -- or how they do not run their fund, if you will -- and now it is saying, “We are going to borrow from you and we are going to give you a return much lower than you could get if you were out there investing in the marketplace.”

The government really is being extremely unfair to this particular fund. The government obviously sees it as a milch cow, which it is milking for its own purposes. It can argue, “Well, the funds benefit all the people of Ontario,” but why on their backs? Why at their expense? Why has it picked out the teachers’ superannuation fund and said, “That is the one we are going to take and we are going to borrow from”?

It is listed very specifically in the bill. It is not as though it is just one of a number of pension plans. “The purpose of this bill is to provide authority for borrowing moneys from the consolidated revenue fund. The principal borrowings authorized under the Ontario Loan Act in recent years have been from the following sources:

“1. Canada pension plan

“2. Teachers’ superannuation fund

“3. The public capital market.”

We all understand the first one, the Canada pension plan. That was the agreement between the provinces and the federal government. Those funds would be made available in proportion to the amount that was raised in each of the provinces.

With respect to the public capital market, everybody understands that you can borrow money on the public capital market.

The only pension plan other than the Canada pension plan is the teachers’ superannuation fund. It is the only one that is specifically delineated in the bill. I hope the member for Yorkview will think about that when he responds, because that is a very unusual thing for the government to be doing.

I know the government likes the teachers’ superannuation fund. It is one of the major sources of borrowing. It allows the government not to have to borrow on the public market, where it would have to pay more. I understand why the government borrows from the teacher’s superannuation fund. It is cheap.

Mr. Reycraft: Not so.

Mr. Laughren: I am telling the member, it is cheap. And that would be fine. You could say, “That’s prudent government, borrowing money at the lowest possible rate.” But I ask the government how it is that it picked out that one particular fund and said, “This is the one we are going to borrow from.” That is exactly what it has done.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Somebody’s got to look after the Legislative Assembly retirement allowances plan.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, that is right, the LARAP. I will not be deterred by interjections from the government House leader.

I am just saying to the member for Yorkview that when he responds, I very much hope he will tell us how he thinks it is fair that this particular fund has been isolated from all other funds for the purpose of government borrowing, and why he thinks it is fair that this fund is restricted from earning a return that other funds have a right to earn out there in the marketplace, and at the same time tells them they now have to pay an extra two per cent of their earnings into the fund in order to make it viable.

If that fund had been receiving market returns for the last 10 years, who knows? Perhaps there would be no requirement whatsoever for the extra two percent. I do not know that. I am not an actuary, but I hope the member for Yorkview will take my remarks into consideration when he responds.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Polsinelli: I have questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary assistant usually responds at the end, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Polsinelli: But I can participate in the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: OK. Fair enough.

Mr. Polsinelli: I figure that rather than saving everything until the end, we have some very intelligent people from the Treasury here, and they sent me a little note: “Government established the Rowan task force,” with which the member for Nickel Belt is fairly familiar, “to examine particularly that question. The Rowan recommended that market investments, as the question suggests, would be appropriate. The government has asked David Slater to consult with teachers and affected groups. Teachers’ superannuation fund money means it costs about 11.3 per cent, as compared to 10.1 per cent for Canada pension plan.”

The bottom line is that rather than borrowing it from the teachers’ superannuation fund, we could get it fr