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

May 23, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FLOODING

DEFICIT

AVIAN EMBLEM

NURSING SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EASTER SEAL RUN/WALKATHON

NATIVE EDUCATION

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY DAY

WILLIAM T. FOSTER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

RESPONSES

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

HOSPITAL BEDS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

DEFICIT

PUBLISHING INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

NORTH BAY HEALTH SERVICES

DRUG ABUSE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

MILK INDUSTRY

NURSING SERVICES

CHILD CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOMES FOR THE AGED

HOME CARE

BLOOMFIELD ROAD CENTRE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HOME CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SARNIA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1989

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL TAX COLLECTORS ACT, 1989

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS ACT, 1989

USE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FLOODING

Mr Pouliot: I would like to inform the House of a situation in the riding of Lake Nipigon, more specifically the very small and isolated reserve of Pic Mobert located a few kilometres west of White River, where 225 people were evacuated yesterday due to flooding.

I understand from the Ministry of Natural Resources that free camping space has been made available for the residents at White Lake Provincial Park. Chief Stan Sabourin informs me today that there are 33 families in White Lake Provincial Park, 14 elders are lodged in the White River Continental Motel and three elders are presently in hospital.

Several people have complained of diarrhoea and sick stomach. In fact, the chief also stated that two dogs which drank the water yesterday died; it had to be contaminated.

The Ministry of Natural Resources in Wawa informs us that it is monitoring the situation with the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Thunder Bay is sending two staff members to monitor the situation.

The chief also stated that he had contacted Ontario today for financial assistance and was denied.

DEFICIT

Mr Pope: I think it is important to note that the budget gives the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and the government of Ontario a once-a-year opportunity to make a statement as to the financial state of affairs of the provincial government and some comment on the economy of the province.

In order for people to understand the budget, they should be assured of sound and consistently applied, generally accepted accounting principles. The Treasurer is aware, as others are now becoming aware, that in fact over $823 million was preflowed by this government in March of this year on account of obligations of this government for the financial year 1989-90, but this money was put into the expenditures of the 1988-89 fiscal year and not the 1989-90 fiscal year. The effect of this is to increase expenditures from $35. I billion in 1988-89 to $38.5 billion in 1989-90; not a seven per cent increase in expenditures, as the Treasurer has said, but 10 per cent.

In fact, in the face of a situation where we are getting more tax revenues in this province than ever before in the hands of the provincial government, more expansion of services in some sectors in the hands of the provincial government, the deficit position of this government is not improving. The deficit last year was $700 million. If you take into account generally accepted accounting principles, this year it is over $1 billion. The situation is worse.

AVIAN EMBLEM

Mr Ballinger: Later this afternoon I will be introducing a private member’s bill, the Avian Emblem Act, a bill to adopt the common loon, Gavia immer, as Ontario’s official bird. In a contest sponsored by the Ministry of Natural Resources, more than 5,000 children aged nine to 11 wrote about the birds they thought would best represent this great province of ours. By an overwhelming margin, their choice was the common loon.

The winning entry was by Matthew Conroy of Walden, Ontario. Matthew is a student at George Vanier School in the nearby town of Lively, just west of Sudbury, in the riding of Nickel Belt. His eloquent explanation of the loon’s unique attributes won him top honours in the contest for best entry. In his winning submission he said: “I looked up some interesting things about loons that would make it perfect for Ontario’s official bird. It is the most ancient of Canadian birds. The loon is deliberately designed as a fish-catching machine and Ontario has lots of lakes and fish.”

Matthew concluded his submission by adding the loon “could be killed by acid rain, since the pollution kills the fish that they eat. Maybe if we use the loon as our bird, it will help fight the pollution.”

I think Matthew’s entry aptly describes the reasons for singling out this species in the rationale behind the motion put forward in the bill. Once the loon is adopted as Ontario’s avian emblem, all provinces in Canada will have official birds.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr Wildman: I want to bring to the attention of the House the situation at the Hornepayne Community Hospital. That hospital cannot now accommodate deliveries, births, because of a shortage of nurses. The mothers-to-be have to travel a few days before their due dates to Hearst, at least 75 miles away, if not to Thunder Bay or another centre, to deliver their children. The infants then must be cared for during the days at the hospital and the mother is away from her family.

The Ministry of Northern Development is funding a new hospital facility for Hornepayne, a much needed one, one for which we have been working for some time. This new facility will have a delivery room, but unless the Ministry of Health recognizes that the nursing shortage is not just a Toronto phenomenon but one that affects even very small communities like Hornepayne, we are not going to be able to staff the delivery room, so people will not be able to use it.

Mothers will continue to have to travel outside of the community at great inconvenience to them and their families, despite the fact that there will be a new, shiny facility available, with state-of-the-art equipment, that could be used but would be vacant.

It would be a shame if the ministry could not allow the deliveries to take place in Hornepayne because of a shortage of nurses.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr McCague: I am sure the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) will have noted in today’s Toronto Sun the column by Richard Rohmer, one of my constituents, in which he talks about the urgency of housing in Toronto and in particular the development of the Downsview lands. He points out that the federal member is all in favour of it. He points out that Alan Redway, the new and knowledgeable Minister of State (Housing), should be in favour of it, and he also suggests that our Minister of Housing should be fully behind the project.

I am particularly interested in this because there is a tremendous amount of traffic on Highway 400, which I have to use periodically. I think if there was 25 per cent or 50 per cent of affordable housing in this general area, it would keep some of the traffic off the highways, because it is right at the end of the subway.

I urge the Minister of Housing to work with her federal counterparts to look towards the development of those lands for affordable housing.

EASTER SEAL RUN/WALKATHON

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure for me to remind the House that this Sunday, 28 May, is the 13th annual Persechini/Easter Seal 10K Run/ Walkathon for Easter Seals in Newmarket. Since its inception, over $500,000 has been raised for Easter Seals, and this year’s target is between $60,000 and $70,000.

With us today in the east gallery is Joe Persechini, the founder of the run, and this year’s co-chairman, David Blackwell, program manager of Newmarket’s Rogers cable station. I think we should give them a warm welcome here to the House. Later today, they will be presenting these handsome running shoes to Ontario’s top jogger, the Premier (Mr Peterson).

I urge everyone in the greater Toronto area to come to Newmarket on Sunday morning at 9:30 am, at the old Davis Tannery to help Timmy and Tammy and Joe and Dave make this the best run ever.

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mr Reville: The Wandering Spirit Survival School in Riverdale is the only native way school in Toronto. The program includes regular school subjects, plus native culture and Ojibway language classes.

The school has a parent council called the Ahkinomagai Kemik Education Council. Four years ago, the Ministry of Education agreed to provide three years of funding to help build the parent council, yet the funding for the third and final year, 1988-89, did not arrive.

After a complicated runaround, the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) met with Ahkinomagai last September and in a recent, undated letter the ministry has offered not the $80,000 originally expected, nor the $53,000 under more recent negotiations, but $25,000. Is that the value of the ministry’s commitment to native way education or is this just one more example of white justice?

Mr Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent to speak on the Federal Republic of Germany Day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY DAY

Mr Ruprecht: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing an important event that took place on this day 40 years ago -- 23 May 1949, to be correct -- the establishment of a free and democratic republic in the western part of Germany. Due to the division of Europe, which we and all Europeans hope will be overcome one day, the Federal Republic of Germany can, until now, offer freedom and justice only to Germans living in the western part of the country.

The promulgation of the federal Constitution on 23 May 1949 is of great historic significance, as this date marks the inclusion of Germany in the community of free and democratic nations. Since then, the Federal Republic of Germany has become a trusted friend and ally of Canada and the other nations of the free world. It has grown to be one of the most important trading nations of this planet and, as such, has become a reliable trading partner of Canada. On many occasions it has shown that it is a committed supporter of democratic and civil rights all over the world.

Of course, we recognize the important contributions German Canadians have made to the cultural and economic development of Ontario for more than 300 years. Our province has become enriched because German compatriots have brought with them their love of music, art and architecture. Moreover, they have contributed to our flourishing economy by bringing with them their sense of accuracy and punctuality in working, as well as their experience with an excellent system of professional training. We have also profited greatly from the participation of German Canadians in all the parts of our cultural, professional and public life.

In appreciation of this contribution and in recognition of the close bond of friendship that unites the people of Ontario, Canada and the German nation, the government of Ontario has proclaimed 23 May 1989 as the Federal Republic of Germany Day.

I am delighted to introduce to the House the consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr von Hassell, and 15 presidents of German-Canadian organizations.

[Remarks in German]

Mr Farnan: On behalf of the Ontario New Democratic Party, I welcome this opportunity to extend our best wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany. Since its founding, the German nation has developed into one of the most stable democracies in the world and is a valued friend and ally of the community of free nations. This 40th anniversary celebration is meaningful and is a joyous reminder of the ability of a nation’s people to recover in spite of adversity and to embrace and protect the ideals of democracy.

Cambridge, like so many other communities across Canada, is proud of our multicultural makeup and grateful for the presence and contribution to our community life of the German Club of Cambridge. Waterloo county has benefited significantly from the skills, talents, work ethic and zest for life the German immigrants have contributed.

Indeed, our region recognizes this influence by means of our annual Oktoberfest celebration and I would like to take this opportunity to invite all members of the House to visit Waterloo county to experience for themselves the warmth of Canadian hospitality, German style, at any time of the year.

As in the Waterloo region, the same is true of Ontario and Canada. The German community has contributed tremendously to the growth and development of Canada, and the influence of Canadians of German origin can be seen across the country, enhancing and enriching our multicultural mosaic. In addition to being involved in all aspects of Canada’s labour, business and cultural sectors, the German community has worked to preserve its unique heritage, encouraging the continuance of centuries of customs and traditions by passing them along from one generation to another.

Again, on behalf of the Ontario New Democratic Party, please allow me to add our very best wishes on this occasion, the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr Brandt: On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, it is my pleasure to join with my colleagues from the other two parties in commemorating the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Much has been achieved since 1949. After the devastation of the Second World War, West Germans began the task of reconstruction. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, an economic miracle took place over the next 10 years and a prosperous society was reborn. However, there remains regret over the division of Germany and the continued separation of the German people.

There are presently more than 500,000 people of German descent living here in our own province. In fact, they make up the third-largest ethnic group in Ontario and have made enormous contributions to our province. One of the most visible and enjoyable aspects of German culture, already commented upon by my friend the member for Cambridge (Mr Farnan), is the annual Oktoberfest celebration in the Kitchener-Cambridge area which attracts thousands of tourists each year.

Today we join all Ontarians of German descent in commemorating this important anniversary and take the opportunity to pay tribute to the people of West Germany for their tremendous efforts in building a free and open democratic society.

Germany has become a leading industrial nation and a close and important trading partner of both Ontario and Canada. It is my wish that the next 40 years prove to be equally successful for the Federal Republic of Germany, and may our Canadian-German relations continue to strengthen in the months and years ahead.

My very best wishes and congratulations.

Hon Mr Kerrio: I rise to ask unanimous consent to give notice of the passing of Bill Foster.

Agreed to.

WILLIAM T. FOSTER

Hon Mr Kerrio: I regret to inform the House that William Foster, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region conservation Authority and Deputy Minister of Natural Resources from 1981 to 1983, passed away on Saturday here in Toronto. Bill Foster was a dedicated conservationist and an innovative manager. He leaves an impressive legacy of accomplishment in the resource management field.

Bill joined the Ministry of Natural Resources as a forester in 1948, when the ministry was the Department of Lands and Forests. As head of the ministry’s forest protection branch and provincial air service during the 1960s, Bill introduced many important features of our modern forest fire protection system. These include aircraft surveillance, water bombers, a fire danger rating system and a fire control training program.

In 1971-72, Bill was implementation director for organizing the new Ministry of Natural Resources, which replaced the Department of Lands and Forests. In 1972, he was named the Ministry of Natural Resources assistant deputy minister, southern Ontario, a post he held for eight years. During his term as deputy minister, the ministry established forest management agreements between the province and the forest companies, implemented the system of district land use guidelines and laid the groundwork for our current approach of integrated resource management.

On a national level, through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Bill helped develop a national air tanker fleet for forest protection. He was also active in establishing the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre in Winnipeg.

After retiring from the ministry, he became chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. There Bill pursued the authority’s plan for conserving green space in urbanized areas. He also took an active interest in the city’s waterfront planning.

Bill was most co-operative when I came in as the Minister of Natural Resources, and in a very personal way showed me the commitment that he had to the setting aside of areas that would be of great interest to future generations. I was very pleased to have had personal involvement with Bill.

Conservation in Ontario has lost a dear friend in Bill Foster. I express the condolences of my ministry as well as my personal sympathy to his wife, Vivian, and their three children.

Mr Wildman: On behalf of our party, I would like to express our condolences to Mrs Foster, her children and Bill’s grandchildren on the passing of the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

When I was first elected, I came to know Mr Foster, who at that time was serving in his position as assistant deputy minister for southern Ontario. As a northern member, of course, I had less to do with him than I did with his colleague for the north, but I always found Mr Foster, as well as his other colleagues, to be very forthright and helpful to new members in serving their constituents, particularly in those parts of the province that are directly involved with resource development and conservation.

I found Mr Foster to be forthright and helpful, particularly in estimates debates, when we used to do estimates around this place, and when he was given the opportunity to express his views on ministry programs and ways to respond to the need to develop our resources in a sensible and self-sustaining way. As has been indicated by the minister, Mr Foster had a long, distinguished career with the Ministry of Natural Resources and its predecessors the Department of Lands and Forests.

Those of us from the Sault Ste Marie area owe him a great debt for his development of the fire protection service and aviation service, which is now centred in the Sault, when he was serving in the forest protection branch.

When Mr Foster succeeded Dr Reynolds as deputy minister, he served with distinction in a time of great change in regard to the management of the forest resource in Ontario; the change to the forest management agreements and the emphasis on regeneration and trying to catch up on the backlog that we have experienced in this province for failing to manage our resources as well as we should have over the past years.

After his retirement, as was indicated, Mr Foster served with the conservation authority and was very concerned with preserving green space. He was recently most concerned about inadequate controls on urban growth in this region, and was quoted recently as saying that he felt there were three to four years left to save the Oakridge moraine, which he believed was threatened by urban development.

Certainly, it would be a great tribute to Mr Foster and his work over the years in the service of the people of Ontario if this Legislature and the government of Ontario were to recognize the need for proper green-space conservation in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Again, on behalf of our party, I would like to extend our sincere sympathy to Mr Foster’s wife, Vivian, his children and grandchildren, and to acknowledge the great debt the people of Ontario have to this public servant.

Mr Pope: First, I would like to thank the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock) for allowing me to rise and give the tribute on behalf of our party. It is tough to say goodbye to a friend. Bill Foster had been appointed Deputy Minister of Natural Resources a few months before I arrived on the scene as Minister of Natural Resources. But, as a member of cabinet, I remember the positive response his appointment as deputy minister received from the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources, who felt that one of their own was now their deputy minister.

Bill Foster, upon becoming deputy minister, almost immediately was embroiled in a problem with respect to parks policy and the Provincial Parks Council. It was a very political issue fought on a very political level and Bill Foster was very worried and frustrated by it. but as we later came to expect of Bill Foster, he worked through it. As a result of his hard work we had a new parks policy announced in Ontario that created 154 new parks and these parks were generally acceptable to all interests.

He was the author of the multiple-use concept, which invaded virtually every aspect of Ministry of Natural Resources policy. He was really the architect of a rapidly expanding reforestation program that did start to catch upon the backlog. He was the author of the community fisheries involvement program. He, along with Mike Klugman, created the short-term and long-term work programs, in concert with the federal government, which allowed for retraining and for some financial assistance to over 7,000 laid-off resource workers on an annual basis in 1982-83.

Through his hard work, Bill Foster created a whole new system of nonlegalistic, nonformal public consultations, whether it was with the strategic land-use planning process or forest management agreements, with advertised open houses and public forums being held throughout the province. He was responsible for Ontario obtaining the CL-215 water bombers. Many other initiatives that the government of the day took credit for were all the result of the hard work, commitment and dedication of Bill Foster.

I will miss the 7 am meetings. I miss the question: “What does ‘no’ mean?” I miss the discussions about what we used to call “the other level,” namely political considerations that must play a role in every government decision. And I miss Vivian’s chocolate-chip cookies. But most of all, Grandpa Bill, Ontario will miss you.

The Speaker: I will, of course, when the official Hansard is printed, make certain that a copy is received by Mrs Foster so that your words of sympathy are received.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Hon Mr Sweeney: About two months ago I believe the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) asked me what the two priorities of my ministry were for the coming fiscal year. I indicated that they were social assistance reform and beginning to deal with the community wage problem. I announced the one last Thursday.

Our government is committed to strengthening and improving the quality of services delivered by community-based social agencies.

Low wages contribute to high staff turnover which threatens the stability, continuity and effectiveness of these important community services. I am committed to helping those workers who are among the lowest paid in the social service system.

Effective this September we will improve the wages of more than 15,000 workers in our community agencies.

The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), in his recent budget, earmarked funding for social service employees who are working directly with children, adults and families in our communities. In support of their vital roles I am announcing the following initiative.

We will target $88.8 million on an annual basis in new resources to improve the rates for visiting homemakers and increase the incomes of workers who assist people with developmental disabilities, workers providing attendant care to people with severe physical disabilities, community staff working with young offenders and individuals who assist victims of family violence.

My ministry will direct this additional funding to support agencies where wages are lowest, or staffing resources need supplementation.

Our efforts will be concentrated on front-line workers.

This additional funding will allow community agencies to retain experienced employees and, as a result, these agencies should be able to deliver their essential services more effectively.

We are developing a process and framework for the equitable distribution of funds in each service sector. To achieve this it is critical to actively engage provincial and community organizations in planning.

Increasing the compensation level for visiting homemakers will be achieved through a rate reform process, building on the recommendations of the interministerial advisory committee on visiting homemakers.

Community agencies working with young offenders will receive funds to hire additional staff and to improve salaries.

Increased compensation will make community agency jobs more attractive to those students considering career opportunities.

We are well aware that these funds do not address all of the compensation issues that we have in our community agencies. However, this is a major step in a process that we began three years ago.

It is a continuing process.

We will maintain the momentum to continue our government’s investment in the stability and the expansion of Ontario’s community social services.

RESPONSES

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr Allen: One is tempted to claim two victories within two weeks. Quite clearly, what the minister says with respect to moving in the right direction is certainly true of this statement. But I want to reserve any undeserved accolades until I can work out a little bit of the mathematics and see exactly how this is spread across a very important field of community services which touches, as the minister indicated, everything from correctional officers to visiting homemakers to developmental centre community living attendant care workers.

The gap that has existed in many of those instances between the work they perform, the compensation they get and the compensation they get in equivalent government ministries, has come pretty close to about $5,000 on the average in many of the schedules of compensation, so there is a lot of ground to be made up.

What concerns me most of all about the announcement, I think, is that the ministry has a habit now of plunging into this issue every three or four years with a major grant announcement to top things up for the community workers, and then things sort of slide back into the old game plan again. We begin to lose ground all over again: we find ourselves in a crisis with homemakers, the Red Cross or the Victorian Order of Nurses, problems escalate and then we do it all over again.

Surely the minister and the government need to be addressing the whole question of the systematic way in which collective bargaining with the voluntary sector takes place. The minister is a hidden member of the bargaining team in the community sector, but he is a direct member when it comes to the government agencies, and the result is there are two different collective bargaining regimes that exist there and that is what keeps generating the big gap.

So what I would like to hear from the minister at some point in time on this very subject -- and perhaps from other members of the government, like the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara), who would also be involved -- is some resolution of the collective bargaining impasse which keeps on generating this gap that creeps up on us after we have made a big effort to close it.

Some thanks to the minister for moving in the right direction -- let me go back to my calculator and see how he has made out -- and will he please tackle the other problem, because it is the basic one that generates this problem for us.

Mrs Cunningham: Once again, we are in a position to say congratulations and we hope it will make a real difference. I am not one to say that throwing money at problems solves them, but I think in this instance we have in fact picked a good one in which to increase wages. In my very quick mathematics, people out there working in the profession -- and I am now talking about homemakers and people who work in special agencies with the developmentally handicapped, people who are working with young people who have been in difficulty with the court system -- were probably looking off the top at some $5,000 improvement to base salaries, and I hope that is exactly where it goes.

The minister talked about something that is very important to the workers out there, “Our efforts will be concentrated on front-line workers.” That is not to say we do not understand that we have to improve ratios at the same time. I think our position really is that we hope the minister will communicate with the agencies and with the staff who are working in the field, so that this program can be implemented so it helps the people we are there to assist, and that is young people and their families.

Second, as I said before, my job is to keep an eye on how the process moves along and the results of the implementation. We will be looking at more people going into the colleges to get proper training, we will be looking at people who work in that field staying in it and staying with the agencies, so that we can have some continuity, and we will also be looking at the families so they can report back and say, “Yes, it has made a difference.” We will be watching carefully and we thank the minister for his efforts with regard to special families and special children.

Mr Jackson: I wish to respond to the minister’s brief announcement as well, because my phone has been ringing all weekend with the implications for social services in the Burlington and Halton area.

Unfortunately, we have a government whose theme is very clearly that it will take first and then hand out a smaller portion, a few days subsequent to a budget. The fact of the matter is that the VON services in Burlington and Halton alone will be charged an additional $40,000 as a direct result of the payroll tax increase. The Red Cross has to come up with an additional $15,000.

Halton Helping Hands, a group that has never had to cope with these kinds of budgetary deficits, is now going to be driven into a deficit position, because of the five types of taxes that have been put on those groups that deliver their services to seniors and shut-ins in the Halton region, and specifically in Burlington, because they are so dependent on their automobiles.

The fact of the matter is that announcements like these today should be put in clear perspective about the impact they have on the bottom-line operation of these services in a community. That is a Band-Aid approach to a serious underfunding problem that is occurring all too frequently with social services, not only in Burlington but across this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Reville: I return with regret to the question that has been bothering people over the weekend, ever since the news broke on Thursday about the Solicitor General’s involvement. I say “with regret,” because the questioning in the Legislature and outside afforded the Solicitor General a number of opportunities to indicate that she realized she had made an error in judgement, but she did not take advantage of those opportunities.

She said in response to one of my questions, “I went strictly to make sure and to reassure that these accusations were unfounded, as I expected they would be and as indeed they were.” That does not explain why the Solicitor General made the telephone call some two hours later, and I wonder if she would explain that to the Legislature now.

Hon Mrs Smith: Yes, I wish to do that. As the member has said, I had been misled in the early instance. When I received a second phone call, I certainly was, by this point, not happy with the person by whom I had been misled. Unfortunately, I had answered the phone and had to speak to her. I simply wanted to record exactly what I said to her, so that if the matter were ever questioned, it would be there available for anyone to see.

That is all I did, repeat my conversation, that the person who had previously misled me had indeed phoned back, had indeed suggested she might be laying complaints. I had told her to do so but that she would do it independently on her own. I had no interest and was no part of it. This is what I recorded.

Mr B. Rae: I share with my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville), and I am sure many other members, a very troubled sense about not only what the Solicitor General did, but also her response on Thursday. She has been given many opportunities to reflect on the appropriateness of her conduct and she has chosen to simply say that she did what she had to do and has not indicated in any way that she feels she has acted inappropriately.

I wonder if the Solicitor General would comment or perhaps reflect on events which took place in this province some 10 years ago, events which also took place federally some 10 years ago, where there was extensive public discussion of the question of contact by various ministers of the crown with members of the judiciary and also with crown attorneys who were involved in the prosecution of a particular case.

In each one of those instances --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: -- whether it was the conduct of Mr Drury, whether it was the conduct of Mr Ouellet, whether it was the conduct of Mr Munro, who resigned and whose resignation was accepted, or whether it was the conduct of Mr Kerr, whose resignation was offered, initially refused and then accepted by the then Premier, Mr Davis -- the question was very clear: Conflict of interest between a minister’s public obligations and private sentiments with regard to a particular case and the question of involvement with the --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr B. Rae: If I may, sir.

The Speaker: Please put it.

Mr B. Rae: As Leader of the Opposition, I will put my question. My question specifically to the minister is this: Has she had a chance since Thursday to reflect on the appropriateness of her presence in a police station in a case involving a personal friend?

Hon Mrs Smith: I will repeat that I received a call in the middle of the night, in which the caller in fact said to me that she was in very dire distress over the safety of her brother. I wanted, in an open and forthright way, to respond and reassure her and to do it in such a way that there were witnesses to the fact that I had in no way involved myself in the case, which I in no way did.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the minister does not understand that simply by being there, simply by stating what she was there for and why she was there, and by making a further phone call two hours later -- does she not realize that in doing each of those things, in fact, she was involving herself in the case and she did make an impression on the people who were involved in the case, so that they made a report to that effect? Does she not therefore realize that her conduct as Solicitor General for this province, in involving herself in a private matter, was completely and utterly inappropriate?

Hon Mrs Smith: I could repeat again that I went up. I said nothing whatsoever about the case. I assured the police who where present that I wanted no involvement in the case whatsoever. They were reassured, and that is absolutely all. The police were not alarmed in any way. They laid charges, as they had planned. The young man has had his case set down, I believe, but I inquired about the case neither then nor after.

Mr B. Rae: It is a little like saying, “I went to the ball game but didn’t watch.” It does not make sense.

The Speaker: Your question is to which minister?

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

Mr B. Rae: My question is to the Treasurer. Last night on Global television, the Treasurer said that for businesses that presently pay Ontario health insurance plan premiums, the amount of money committed is almost exactly the same with the payroll tax. Is that also the position the Treasurer is taking with respect to the amount of payroll tax being paid by universities, by boards of education and by our municipalities?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Some of the organizations the honourable member refers to pay 100 per cent of the present OHIP premiums and some pay only a part. Naturally, the organizations that pay only part of the premium will be paying more upon payment of the two per cent employer health levy.

Mr B. Rae: I would like to give the Treasurer some estimates of how much some of these public bodies, supported by public tax dollars, will in fact be spending.

At the University of Toronto the new payroll tax will add an additional $4.6 million over what it currently pays. At the University of Ottawa the OHIP costs will jump eightfold, from $270,000 to an additional $2.1 million. That is just an example of two universities that are going to be asked to pay this much extra.

I would like to ask the Treasurer: Just what is the logic of introducing a tax on many large, publicly supported employers, who get their money from the Ontario government? What is the logic of giving to them with one hand, then taking away with the other, and forcing them to cut back on other services while he introduces this new tax?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, I think you are aware that it is one of my duties each fall to announce to the Legislature the level of support for all of these transfer agencies. Obviously, when this money is announced, let’s say the responsibilities of the agencies will be taken into consideration, and I hope that the universities and other transfer agencies will see that this announcement will properly respond to that requirement.

I think we also have to be aware that all of the people working at universities have the advantage of access to our medicare system and the universities will be paying the same share as any other employers. The fact that their budget dates do not correspond in any precise way with our own is something that will have to be taken into consideration at the same time.

Mr B. Rae: if the Treasurer is saying that he is guaranteeing in this House that no university, board of education, hospital or municipality will end up suffering as a result of the new payroll tax, let him stand up and say in the House that that is the kind of guarantee.

Can the Treasurer guarantee that the over $100 million that he is exacting as tribute from all of these publicly supported bodies will in fact be rebated to those institutions so that we do not have more hospital cutbacks, more difficulties in our universities and higher property tax forced on us because of what municipalities are going through?

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The short answer is no. The honourable member may want some additional information. He will be aware that this year the grants for the partners in these responsibilities, including the colleges, universities, municipalities, school boards, hospitals and so on, are substantial, in the case of universities 7.5 per cent or a bit more.

Mr D. S. Cooke: How much are you taking back? You give seven per cent and take two per cent back.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I have already indicated to the honourable member who is interrupting, if he was listening, that in the grants that are announced year by year, all of these matters will have to be taken into consideration. But in response to the honourable member’s question, the answer is no.

Mr Brandt: Before I ask my first question, I wonder if we could get some clarification from the government House leader as to whether the Premier (Mr Peterson) is expected to be here this afternoon so that we can set up the agenda for our questions.

Hon Mr Conway: As I have indicated in a note to the House leader for the third party, the Premier will not be at question period today.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Brandt: I want to raise my first question with the Chairman of Management Board. I would like to remind the Chairman of Management Board that back in 1986, when he served in the position of Minister of Health, he made a commitment that there would be more than 4,000 new hospital beds constructed in Ontario at a cost of some $850 million. We now have the report of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy which indicates that this in fact could be the wrong way to go in relation to the construction of those hospital beds.

I wonder if the Chairman of Management Board could advise this House whether he stands by his original commitment of 1986 for the construction of more than 4,000 hospital beds or whether he has a changed position relative to the report of the Premier’s health council which indicates that they are not needed.

Hon Mr Elston: The report has just been made public and obviously is part of the overall government policy development. It will be reviewed in appropriate fashion by cabinet.

Mr Brandt: I might remind the minister that back in 1986 he indicated that there was a two-year wait for chronic care. He also pointed out some of the extremely astonishing numbers with respect to the increased percentage of elderly in our population and said that there would be a very critical need for the expansion of the number of beds that he identified in 1986, if not beds over and above the amount he outlined at that time.

I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he intends to keep that commitment as it relates to the construction of those particular beds. As he served previously in that ministry and is now the holder of the purse-strings of the province to a certain extent, what is it his intention to do with respect to hospital construction?

Hon Mr Elston: I, along with my cabinet colleagues, will consider in due course the report which has just been made available. As the member has indicated, at particular times the needs were expressed by me in the sense of waiting lists and otherwise.

Since 1986, it is remarkable to note the increase in activity in community services and the activities being carried on between the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) currently and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), and in relationship to those, the support role played by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr Mancini) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson). It has become clear that the time to examine is now.

In light of this report and otherwise, we will be looking at all of the questions which are raised as a result of the filing of the report. It is a very good report. There is a lot of excellent consideration being given by people who have a very clear interest and a new perspective on the way things are being done.

From my point of view, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the examination of all of the funding issues, as all of my cabinet colleagues do when we come to making decisions with respect to delivery of programs in the province.

Mr Brandt: I gather the message is that the minister is going to break his commitment, because he has indicated that he now has a new revelation with respect to the future for hospitals in this province.

I would like to remind the minister that back in 1986 on 15 August, when he was speaking as Minister of Health, he made a commitment for some 201 chronic care beds and 105 acute care beds to the region of Durham; some 380 acute and 200 chronic care beds to Peel; 111 chronic care beds to Chedoke McMaster Hospitals; 40 chronic care beds to Willett Hospital; 175 acute and 156 chronic care beds to Halton; a total of 176 new chronic care beds for the north, and some 300 beds for the Ottawa regional area.

I would like to ask the minister, recognizing if I might that these communities have gone out on fund-raising drives to raise the necessary supplementary funding required in order to construct these particular facilities whether he is now saying that those efforts are for naught, that they are wasted. What are these communities to do, as he has now broken his commitment?

Hon Mr Elston: I have not broken my commitment. The member should know that what we are asking in this particular government is that people actually develop a much stronger partnership and delivery of care and services, not only in the community but also with respect to community hospitals.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the report which is made from a group of people with a perspective expressed well in the statement by Mr Aitken and otherwise allows us to examine the manner in which we deliver services to the population in the province. From that point of view, I think we are looking at providing first-rate care and good-quality care to the people of Ontario.

That is our commitment. It is the commitment of the current Minister of Health and it is the commitment of the current Minister of Community and Social Services. This report is another basis upon which we can make informed decisions with respect to delivery of services, whether they be in hospitals, communities or otherwise.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General. Most of us on this side of the House are mystified and somewhat alarmed about the Solicitor General’s reaction to the events in Lucan that were revealed last week. When we take a look at the London Free Press, the minister is quoted on the weekend as saying that she denied making an error in judgement: “In retrospect, I don’t think I’d do anything differently.”

That is an amazing response. When asked about this last week, the Premier (Mr Peterson) said that after seeing the OPP report, he agonized over whether or not to remove the minister from her responsibilities. Is the minister suggesting that the Premier has not discussed the results of the OPP report with her? How can she continue to stand in this House and say she did nothing wrong? How could she say in her own community that she would do the same thing again?

Hon Mrs Smith: I do not know what the particular report is that the member for Leeds-Grenville has, but if he had been watching television on Thursday he would have heard my response, which at the time was that indeed I believed I had done nothing wrong. I acted under difficult circumstances, but I would undoubtedly weigh into the matter the grief I had caused the Premier -- those were the words I used -- and probably would not go out again.

Mr Runciman: This whole business reeks of favouritism and special treatment, not only in respect to the minister’s friends and the friends of the Liberal Party of Ontario, but also in respect to the treatment by the Premier of the province of this particular minister, this wife of Don Smith, the chief fund-raiser of the Liberal Party, the former president of the Liberal Party of Ontario. Those are the facts.

Does the minister not appreciate the messages that her conduct and actions and her leader’s conduct and actions are sending out the people of this province? Will she not do the right thing and submit her resignation?

Hon Mrs Smith: The answer is no.

Mr Runciman: The minister does not want to deal with that very serious question and request. I will take a different tack. This minister has on numerous occasions, as has her leader, spoken about policy in reference to the police in this province. We have seen a recommendation of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force that also calls for even stronger views in respect to the investigation of police officers charged with serious offences.

Does the minister, I assume, continue to support that policy? If indeed she does, how can she advocate an investigation of her, the results of which have been kept secret? it is a totally different standard for her from the one that she is putting in place for the cops on the beat. How can she support that? How can she stand in the House and say that is all right?

Hon Mrs Smith: The report was ordered by the Premier to be doubly certain for political reasons. He has probably satisfied himself thoroughly that there was absolutely nothing there, so he did not ask for my resignation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: I would ask the minister to clearly answer this question. Is she now admitting that she made a mistake, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Smith: The answer is simple; the answer is no. I said I did not and I have remained with that. I said I have discomfited the president -- the Premier.

Mr B. Rae: He is not yet the president.

I would like to ask the minister this simple question. Since she is not prepared to admit that she made a mistake -- and personally I cannot believe my ears when I hear the minister saying that -- I will then ask the minister this question: What happens to those thousands of other people out there who do not know the minister’s phone number, who do not know the minister’s family and who feel they are being abused, potentially possibly, or they do not belong to the same country club or whatever it may be and feel they are being abused?

I want to ask the minister quite directly, what is the standard of conduct here that we are applying? What happens to all those people who do not know the Solicitor General and who cannot get in touch with her at two o’clock in the morning?

Hon Mrs Smith: The member will be interested to know that as of today my phone number is in the phone book with “MPP” beside it for anyone to phone. I very much question whether I would have done much different if it had been someone else’s child in the same distress.

Mr Pope: I cannot believe that. I just cannot believe that answer.

DEFICIT

Mr Pope: I have a question for the Treasurer. Hidden deep in page 59 of the budget statement are two numbers with respect to advance payments: the first with respect to advance payments on capital account of $410 million, the second to advance payments on municipal affairs in the amount of $413 million.

Will the Treasurer confirm that on 30 March and 31 March, with respect to the 1989-90 fiscal year, one day before that fiscal year started he had automatically deposited by automatic deposit system in the accounts of municipalities across this province $413 million on account of 1989-90 obligations of this government?

The honourable member will be aware that similar advance payments have been listed for this particular year for next year. Although they do not exactly balance in number, the concept is the same: that the money should be paid when the money is available. I believe that was a considerable benefit to school boards and municipalities.

Mr Pope: And it just happened that this miraculous occurrence was on the last day of the fiscal year just passed. It just happened that it was on 31 March, the last possible day, that $413 million to municipal transfers and $410 million in capital advances were made. It just happened that it was the last possible day.

Will the Treasurer admit that the effect of this transfer is that in fact we have a 10 per cent increase in expenditures in 1989-90 over 1988-89, a 10 per cent increase in expenditures in reality, from $35.1 billion to $38.5 billion, and in reality the deficit position of this province is deteriorating at the very time when he is getting more revenue than ever before?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The budget critic for the third party has as one of his responsibilities, I suppose, to make the budget look different from what it is. But in fact the numbers are presented here, put forward by the officials of the Treasury, that the expenditure increase is approximately seven per cent. As far as the honourable member is concerned, he will know that advance payments have been made well back into the dim and distant history of the Progressive Conservative days.

PUBLISHING INDUSTRY

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I recently heard that the Canada Development Investment Corp has purchased majority interest in two Canadian textbook publishing firms from Gulf and Western (Canada) Ltd. I am speaking specifically about Ginn and Co and GLC Publishers Ltd. Given the importance of textbook publishing to Canadian culture, would the minister indicate how this purchase relates to the Baie Comeau policy announced in 1985?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: In July 1985, the then and now minister, Marcel Masse, made an announcement indicating what the cultural policy would be, reflective of the Investment Canada Act, on book publishing and distribution. In effect, the statement indicated that Canadians would like to own and control this particular lucrative sector and that Mr Masse would be monitoring any indirect acquisitions or takeovers from foreign investors.

This was not to say that he was not encouraging foreign investment, but that 51 per cent of any indirect takeovers or acquisitions should be Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled. The recent purchase by the Canada Development Investment Corp is a reflection of that policy, and we, as a province which houses many of the important partners in book publishing and distribution, welcome Mr Masse’s action.

Mr Neumann: Now that the Canada Development Investment Corp has controlling interest in these companies, there may be some concern over the future of the textbook publishing industry in Canada. Does the minister know whether the federal government intends to manage and operate the publishing company itself?

CHILD CARE

Mr Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services on the subject of the child care cost deduction he announced last week in the context of a budget which failed to announce dollars for an expansion of subsidized day care spaces. On the one hand, the minister has single parents in low-income brackets giving up work and going on family benefits because they cannot find subsidized day care spaces. On the other hand, under his Social Assistance Review Committee reforms he is allowing those on family benefits a day care cost deduction from earnings, but there are no subsidized spaces for them to go to in Toronto and none at all of any kind elsewhere.

Can the minister explain how, on balance, this contradictory pattern of policy facilitates an overall movement from dependence to self-support on the part of those on family benefits or how it benefits the children or advances day care in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Although there was not a specific reference to expansion of day care subsidies, in fact there is an increase of 4,200 spaces built into my budget. That will be taking place this fiscal year.

The honourable member will be well aware, however, that there has been some disagreement between this minister and some municipalities in this province as to how those spaces are allocated. Therefore, rather than putting more subsidized spaces into the general pool -- in other words, adding to the 4,200 -- we have chosen to go the social assistance route, and that is to allocate those spaces directly to those single parents who want to get back into the workforce. As a matter of fact, the total number of subsidized spaces this year, using the two sources, will be considerably in excess of the 4,200 I just announced.

Mr Allen: Let me get some further clarification from the minister, If he is saying that he is allowing access to specifically designated spaces for those who are on social assistance, on the one hand we are obviously moving the day care system backwards towards a welfare-oriented system and away from social services, as was intended.

On the other hand, if that is not what he is saying, one has a situation where, in fact, he is expanding the likelihood of those family benefits recipients accessing the informal day care system because there are no other avenues to pursue, and it is cheaper to do it that way if a person has to pay up front and then get the deduction later.

There are cash-flow problems. A number of factors are pushing these mothers, these single parents, in the direction of accessing ready, handy, quick and cheap day care. Which is it and what is it?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Not quite. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that when we announced New Directions for Child Care -- I guess it is three years ago; this is the third year of that first three-year cycle -- I indicated that the growth in subsidized spaces would be approximately 13,000 over the three years. This year, with the additional 4,200, we will in fact exceed those 13,000. So in terms of the projected growth in the regular day care system, we are meeting and exceeding the target we had set for ourselves.

Apart from that, what we are saying to single parents who have young children and who wish to go back into the workforce is: “We will allow you to deduct from your net earnings your actual cost of child care. Whether you get it in the informal system, whether you get it in the commercial system or whether you get it in the nonprofit system, that’s your choice to make.” We will set those recognized ceilings sufficiently high so that they can choose any one of those three elements.

Some of them may choose the informal system. Some of them may do that, as they do now, I would suggest to the honourable member, under our employment support initiatives which are currently part of our agreement with many municipalities, I think 23 in the province at the present time.

NORTH BAY HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member for Nipissing that, in fact, the ministry has not yet received a proposal from the community in North Bay which has achieved the objectives he has articulated. I would say, as well, that I know the community is looking at innovative approaches. I would say that I would expect any proposal which would come from the community would have to have community support and consensus before it would be considered by the ministry.

Mr Harris: The minister has reneged on a commitment for a joint hospital in North Bay. She talks about a proposal coming from the community, after she wrote a letter to the community and Dr Barkin wrote a letter to the community which said, “Play ball my way, accept this proposal that we’re going to have developed for you by an American consultant which will come in and we will pay for, or you don’t get, a new hospital.” This is the minister’s consultant that she recommended, that she paid for. Her ministry people sat on the committee. It has been available for two or three weeks.

I would ask the minister once again not what the community wants, but whether she accepts the proposal, which surely she has had a copy of now for a number of weeks, which the medical association in North Bay clearly indicates encourages saving money at the expense of access to quality health care, encourages capitation of services, encourages doctors to save money by not --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member for Nipissing raises a couple of points that I think should be clarified because I know that he would not want to misrepresent the discussions that are ongoing in his community or the innovative proposals which are being undertaken in a number of different communities to ensure equity and access to effective, quality health care as close to home as possible for the people of those communities. He knows that is my priority and my vision.

I would say to the member that in fact North Bay is not labouring under any misunderstanding. He knows there was a political announcement made in North Bay some time ago; that North Bay has never been included formally in the Ministry of Health planning process for capital development; that I visited North Bay; that I discussed that with John Hobbs, the chairman of the board, and that we said to them we could assist with some planning dollars for innovation. The community selected the consultants and is now discussing the proposals that have been developed under the auspices of a steering committee in the community.

I would say to him that it is very important that he allow the community consultation to move forward. I will be very interested in the results of those discussions and deliberations to ensure that the people of North Bay have equity of access.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. I have been pursuing the minister with questions about the health and fitness of students In Ontario and I have appreciated his answers on health and exercise. I would now like to ask: Are we doing enough to tackle problems associated with the use of legal and illegal drugs by students in our schools?

Hon Mr Ward: I would like to compliment the member for Peterborough for his ongoing interest in this very important matter. He will know that quite some time ago, I believe last October, I announced my ministry’s response to the report of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black) on the issue of substance abuse in this province. I indicated that this coming September, drug education would be mandatory in every school in Ontario and that I expected the validation process for the new health and physical education guideline would be amended so that drug education could start earlier, for example in kindergarten.

He will know that we set up an advisory committee under the chairmanship of Karl Kinzinger, former director of education of the North York Board of Education, to look at drug abuse policies in schools throughout the province. We have a teacher training component.

In

summary, I believe my ministry has been very aggressive in pursuing the very important recommendations made by my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. It is hoped that these interventions will go a long way in tackling this very serious problem for many young people in this province.

Mr Adams: As I said, I have appreciated the minister’s replies to this and my previous questions. Programs are all well and good, but without monitoring, what do we have to show that they are effective? Do we assess the impact of our programs by testing our students’ health?

Hon Mr Ward: It is a very important question and, again, it reflects just how seriously we take this issue --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Ward: -- and it surprises me very much that members of the official opposition take very lightly the issue of drug abuse in this province. I think that is very unfortunate, because it is indeed a very serious problem.

The point the member has raised is in terms of the extent to which we measure the effectiveness of these programs. We do in fact benefit from biannual reports by the Addiction Research Foundation, which does a survey of substance abuse in this province. He will also know that the new guidelines for health and physical education envision the establishment of a student health and fitness profile beginning with students in grade 7 and following those students through the balance of their academic careers.

All of this, I believe, will go some distance in ensuring that we are able to monitor the effectiveness of these programs. However, I do have to say that I do not think anything can replace the fact that we need to do as much as we can to involve parents in this issue as well, because clearly they, too, can have a very dramatic impact.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Wildman: Now that we have gone from one member asking if we are doing enough, we will go to one where we know we are not.

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Will the minister acknowledge that the recent budget indicates a drop of $39 million in expenditures for his ministry from the 1987-88 budget? For the third year in a row, that agriculture budget has been dropping. Can the minister, if he acknowledges this, explain where the cuts will be made, and can he assure the farm community that the amount spent in agriculture in this province will not be lowered by redefining the definition of full-time farmer eligible for the Ontario farm tax rebates?

Hon Mr Riddell: I just happen to have the facts and figures with me in response to the honourable member’s question. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food budgetary spending for 1988-89 is currently forecast at $527.6 million. This is $38.9 million below the budget plan of $566.5 million, mainly due to in-year savings in the farm tax rebate program and in farm income stabilization. At that level, OMAF’s budgetary expenditure forecast of $527.6 million is $222 million or 72.6 per cent higher than the ministry’s 1984-85 spending level.

This growth rate is substantially above the 44 per cent growth rate for total government budgetary spending since 1984-85, and even stronger growth can be seen in direct spending on priority programs --

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps you should save the second page for the supplementary.

Mr Wildman: Since the minister has admitted that his budget has saved, to use his term, $39 million from last year, can he explain why there is no commitment in this budget for the extension of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, so that farmers in this province will be at a better competitive situation with their counterparts in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec, where they pay between seven and nine per cent interest on borrowed money, instead of the current situation with increasing interest rates in Ontario?

Hon Mr Riddell: Part of our provincial strategy is to provide long-term programs whereby all farmers can participate. The day has come when we have to cease trying to implement what we call Band-Aid programs to target just a few farmers. We want programs that all farmers can participate in. That is the reason we have spent so much time on tripartite stabilization, which has been a good program for farmers. That is the reason that we are spending so much time on enriching the crop insurance program, which has been a good program for farmers. All farmers can participate.

Furthermore, under the national agricultural strategy, all provinces are going to have to look at their subsidy program. They have got to cap their subsidy program. So we are really in the forefront of helping our farmers without having to do it with Band-Aid programs, which is a contravention of the national agricultural strategy. Our farmers will compete with the rest of them any day. They have been doing it and they will continue to do it.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Runciman: This is to the Solicitor General again, in respect to her visit to Lucan and some of the nonanswers we have received in the past.

I wonder if she would elaborate, perhaps in greater detail than she has up to this point, in respect to why she felt it necessary to discuss the situation with the police in Lucan, and why she later phoned back at approximately four in the morning? She has told us, up to this point, that she did it because the parents were out of town. She subsequently met the parents, yet still proceeded to discuss the situation with the police and then phoned back at a later hour. Can she explain her reasons for doing that?

Hon Mrs Smith: When I made the decision to go to Lucan, I believed the parents to be out of town and I was responding to very serious accusations, concerns and anxieties of their daughter, who was concerned about the safety of her brother. I went up there, as the member pointed out, and found out that indeed the father was there. I was also aware that the police were aware of my presence, so I wanted, in an open and forthright way, in the presence of witnesses, to tell them that I had never and would not in any way discuss the case. I had come because of the complaints about police brutality, and having found the father there, would withdraw.

Mr Runciman: That is an asinine response, to be about as polite as I can be.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps questions without comments would be helpful.

Mr Runciman: Perhaps the minister will not want to respond to this, but I would certainly like to hear her views with respect to the resignation of her colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes) approximately two years ago. He resigned pending an investigation. The investigation was made public. That was a situation where there was no question that anyone had benefited or could have benefited from the accusations with respect to the member for Kingston and The Islands. Will the minister stand in the House today and indicate whether she felt the action of the member for Kingston and The Islands in that situation was appropriate?

Hon Mrs Smith: In my case it was the Premier (Mr Peterson) who got the report, as he requested, and made the decision as to what I should or should not do.

MILK INDUSTRY

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As he is aware, I represent Oxford, the dairy capital of Canada. In Oxford, we have 680 dairy farms supporting 1,708 families. The present system of milk marketing in this province allows these families to maintain a standard of living and a quality of life comparable to other segments of society.

I would like to strongly emphasize that milk receipts received at the farm gate contribute $100 million annually to Oxford county. One must also recognize that the dairy industry in Oxford has a very significant impact on local businesses such as farm suppliers, service industries, financial and professional services and retail outlets.

In view of the importance of the milk industry to my county and this province, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food what his response has been to the federal Minister of Agriculture regarding a request to cap the fluid milk price paid to producers until 1 January 1991.

Hon Mr Riddell: Last 12 May, the provincial and federal ministers of agriculture had a long, serious discussion about the ramifications of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed 7 April of this year, particularly as it pertained to the freezing of commodity prices under the supply management system. The federal minister did not specifically ask that we, as provincial ministers, encourage marketing boards to freeze prices under their jurisdiction, but he did ask for general support to back his efforts in the 7 April agreement.

I have always supported global liberalized trade, but I just fail to see how capping the prices of commodities under the supply management system achieves that goal, because those commodities contribute very little, if at all, to the trade-distorting practices that are going on within this great world of ours.

Mr Tatham: Could the minister also state if he is aware of the request to cap prices paid to other sectors of society.

Hon Mr Riddell: As I have indicated, the federal minister did not specifically ask that we in the provinces cap commodity prices. He simply asked that we give him general support about what he is endeavouring to do with the GATT and the --

Mr Wildman: What are you going to do?

Hon Mr Riddell: I am certainly in favour of trade liberalization, but let’s look at those commodities that are contributing to the trade-distorting practices. Let’s not simply focus on commodities under supply management, which contribute nothing to the trade-distorting practices.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. The Premier’s Council on Health Strategy issued another instalment today. It did not say anything about the nursing shortage in there.

I wonder if the minister has had a chance to review a case that was reported in the Toronto Star under the headline “Thirty-year Nurse Blames Dad’s Death on Nursing Shortages at Hospital.” That was on 9 May 1989 and the nurse in question was Mavis Mackenzie. Her father’s name was Arnold. According to Mavis, he was restrained after surgery in a way that contributed to his death.

I wonder if the minister would comment on whether or not it would now be appropriate to do something about the nursing shortage.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, our hospitals are run by independent boards of trustees. When I receive any complaints by anyone who is dissatisfied with the service, I am always distressed. In the case of hospitals, I forward their request to the hospital for the hospital’s investigation.

If at any time the member opposite or any member receives those kinds of complaints, I am always happy to ask the hospital administration or board of trustees to investigate any specific allegations of inappropriate care, because the hospitals have a responsibility to provide the kind of quality patient care at a standard which we expect, and in fact we hold the boards accountable for the decisions they make in this province.

Mr Reville: Given the severity of the charges that are being made in this case, I think it would probably be appropriate for the minister to ask her colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) to order an inquest.

This is not the only case, and I know a number of them have been brought to the minister’s attention. There was one involving a Mr Thompson at the Wellesley Hospital where the fact situation was very similar; an elderly gentleman in restraints for several days following surgery. There was another case about which the minister should know, because it was brought to her attention, at the North York Branson Hospital. It was almost the same fact situation but, thankfully, without the fatal result.

I would like the minister to undertake to get back to me with a detailed response in this connection.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, I am always willing to ask the hospitals to investigate the circumstances fully if he would give me the specific details of any of the specific cases.

He makes very serious allegations. I can tell him I believe that the public hospitals in this province deliver very fine care. That is their charge under the Public Hospitals Act. I know the trustees who run those hospitals take their responsibilities very seriously and stand accountable for the performance of their hospitals.

If he will send me any specific details, I would be pleased to look into them, but I would point out that in fact we have made great strides in this province in involving nurses and giving them a greater say in the decision-making and the running of our hospitals. The new nursing regulations have been heralded as a significant step, in fact the most significant advance for nurses since they were registered in 1923, to quote the leader of the Ontario Nurses’ Association.

I say to the member that I am always pleased to investigate specific instances.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are some 4,500 families in Metropolitan Toronto alone who are waiting for subsidized child care spaces. if his response to the member for Hamilton West (Mr Mackenzie) is that he is going to add to his plan some 4,200 new spaces, we are hardly beginning to meet the needs of those people we are trying to help get back into the world of work by supporting them at home with child care.

How can the minister’s plan change now, given the statements he made in the House this afternoon, to meet this tremendous need out there?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Of those 4,200 new spaces this year, I believe about 1,000 are going to Metro. That will boost their total subsidized spaces to something in excess of 19,000. They are there and they are going to remain there.

Prior to my announcement of last Thursday, single parents wishing to go back into the workforce would have to compete for those spaces with everyone else. What I am saying is that all of those spaces are still there and they can continue to compete for them should they choose to do so, or they can take advantage of the second option that I am giving them, and that is to get their day care from any other centre or informally, however they choose. We will cover the cost of that through reducing their net income and therefore impacting on their welfare cheque. So it is in addition to, not in place of.

Mrs Cunningham: We should know that in spite of the wonderful numbers of the government -- and of course we congratulate it -- in this province we should look at the real need. Some three years ago we were looking at 20 per cent of the children whose parents work. They are the only children whom we can provide child care to, only 20 per cent of the children of parents who work.

Today that number has not changed very much at all. We are probably looking at some 23 per cent. This is getting ahead of us, quite frankly, because more parents are choosing to work. We have a tremendous problem. In meeting the need of these other people, the minister mentioned meeting a certain ceiling and he said that $7,000 is really what it is going to cost the family for child care. What formula will the minister be using to help these people? What is the ceiling that he is talking about? What should they expect if they do not qualify for a subsidized space? What can they expect from his government?

Hon Mr Sweeney: We are still in the process of arriving at those ceilings, but I can tell the member that what we have done is in addition to Metropolitan Toronto, we have acquired from all areas across the province the actual subsidized cost of a space in various places in the province right now and we will be gearing our ceilings to roughly about the midrange of those actual subsidized costs that are out there right now. In other words, they will not be mythical figures. They will relate directly to what the costs are. They will not be the high end.

I think I can clearly indicate to the member -- let’s say, for example, that a space in a Metro-run day care, one of its directly run ones, is about the highest in the province -- that our allocation will not allow him to buy that space, but it will allow him to buy spaces in every community in this province.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Over the weekend I had occasion to visit my hospital for an illness and, while I was there, I was informed by one of our local resident doctors that the Toronto Sun had indicated that Ontario had capped Ontario health insurance plan funds. I do not read the Sun on Sunday; I do not read it that often any other day of the week, either. Would the minister perhaps, for the benefit of my constituent, indicate whether that article, as he explained it to me, is correct.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I believe that the

article that the member was referring to is the report which in fact was released today by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. As the member would know, the government has just released this report, and I think it is important that we have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations with all of our partners in health care.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to the impact of the Social Assistance Review Committee reforms on a single disabled person who secures subsidized housing and who will get no benefit unti1 January, and then only the cost-of-living increase, which the six per cent announcement really amounts to. Was it really intended that those reforms would provide so little for that person under the SARC reforms?

Hon Mr Sweeney: There are two things. The honourable member will be well aware of the fact that it is over two years ago, I guess, that I made a commitment that I would close the gap between Gains-A and Gains-D, the guaranteed annual income systems for the aged and the disabled. This initiative does that for those disabled people living in the private sector with maximum rent. It closes that gap. They would both be getting the same amount of money. As a matter of fact, I think the Gains-D might get even a little bit more.

However, if they are already living in subsidized housing, as the honourable member realizes, that is another form of shelter subsidy. You get two choices. You are either in Ontario Housing Corp subsidized housing or you get a shelter subsidy from my ministry; you do not get both.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr D. R. Cooke: I have a petition with nine names on it, petitioning the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.

HOME CARE

Mr McCague: I have a petition which 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 support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

This contains 133 signatures, and I have affixed mine.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 600 people in Ontario, many of them from the community of North Bay. The signatures have been collected by a resident, Genisio Paciocco, who is in the members’ gallery right now. The petition reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Labour:

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

“That the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Labour resign for not implementing in a more expeditious manner the recommendations of the Social Assistance Review Committee report, in particular, the increasing of the minimum wage to a level above the poverty line for the working poor.”

I have signed and endorsed this petition and present it for serious consideration by this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am waiting until the private conversations get down a little lower.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr Adams: I have a petition from more than 130 people associated with the Fairhaven Home for Senior Citizens, which is a home of the county and city of Peterborough. It is properly addressed and it begins:

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

“Whereas the four per cent capping of the 1989 budget for Fairhaven Home for Senior Citizens will threaten the quality of life for present and future residents, and

“Whereas with such budget capping the home cannot initiate the ministry-advocated respite and outreach services for seniors within the county, which will limit much-needed extended care services available to seniors in the future, and

“Whereas budget capping threatens our home’s ability to staff so as to ensure the safe and consistent level of care that our seniors deserve,

“Therefore we support the motions of the city and county councils of Peterborough to review the funding formula for homes for the aged.

“Further, we recommend that the cabinet reconsider its decision to cap the budget for homes for the aged and provide appropriate levels of funding.”

HOME CARE

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a petition with 263 signatures of residents of the city of Windsor which reads as follows:

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

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

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

I have affixed my signature to that petition, with which I heartily agree.

BLOOMFIELD ROAD CENTRE

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a second petition, signed by 152 residents of Windsor, and it reads:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor to reinstate the residents of Bloomfield/St Joseph and Essex Court area of Windsor as the principal tenants of the provincially owned property located at 3440 Bloomfield Road.

“The Bloomfield Road centre was built to be used and operated by the tenants and residents living within the area through association, namely, the Windsor West Citizens Organization.

“We do not support any attempt or decision by the Windsor Housing Authority or any such association that would surrender our rights and privileges vested in the aforementioned property.”

I have affixed my signature as well to that.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Wildman: I have a petition signed by 117 residents of Ontario, which was circulated by the Simcoe County Injured Workers Association. Many of the people are from Simcoe county.

“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 urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980,

chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981,

chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982,

chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983,

chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986,

chapter 64,

section 69.”

I have signed my signature to the petition and I am in support of it.

RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

Mr Pollock: I have a petition signed by 42 people 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:

“Gentlemen: I am a proud Canadian and proud of my heritage. I am also very aware of the part religious freedom has played in the freedom we as Americans and Canadians now enjoy. Therefore, I protest any human effort to remove from radio or television any program designed to show faith in God, or the removal of Christian songs or carols from the public school system.”

I have affixed my signature to this.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr Reycraft: I have four petitions. The first is signed by 12 individuals from the riding of Renfrew North. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas we believe the amendments to regulation 262 relating to the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing exercises in public schools deprive many Ontario citizens of their established freedoms, we therefore object to this loss of freedom.”

I have affixed my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Reycraft: I have another petition signed by one other individual from the riding of Renfrew North and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.”

I have again affixed my signature.

HOME CARE

Mr Reycraft: The third petition is signed by 21 individuals from the riding from Renfrew North and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr Reycraft: The fourth petition is signed by 55 individuals from the riding of Quinte and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

It is a lengthy petition and I will not read the entire text of it, but it calls for the school boards to be allowed their choice on the use of prayers in opening and closing exercises in schools.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Miller: I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.”

It is signed by T. J. Miranda, and there are eight other signatures plus my own.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Polsinelli: I have a petition signed by 50 individuals and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to --

“Introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

I have also subscribed my name to it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“I/we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work get decent pensions, rehabilitation, and jobs when they are able.”

I have signed the petition as well.

HOME CARE

Mr Elliot: I have six petitions here that all read the same way. They read:

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

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

“Whereas we support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery and

whereas the Victorian Order of Nurses will incur a further deficit of $3 million provincially in the 1989-90 fiscal year if the government of Ontario fails to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the VON may be forced to alter their home care services -- we petition the Minister of Health to revise the funding formula for 1989-90 so that a secure funding base be established to reflect the increasing complex care needs in the community case load and to provide adequate compensation for the service providers working in the community setting so that citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive health care in an institutional setting.”

As I said at the opening, this is a six-part petition. It has about 187 signatures on it and I have affixed my own signature to it as well.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition signed by Linda Esposito of Welland, eight others and myself and 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:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

HOME CARE

Mrs Fawcett: “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 support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

I have affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mr Ballinger: I have two motions.

The Speaker: You have two motions.

Mr Ballinger: Yes, I do. Two bills, I am sorry.

The Speaker: Therefore, you do have two motions. Now the member for Sarnia got in ahead of you there.

SARNIA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1989

Mr Brandt moved first reading of Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting Sarnia General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Ballinger: I would just like to say it’s all the fault of the member for Sudbury (Mr Campbell), because I was trying to speak and listen at the same time.

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1989

Mr Ballinger moved first reading of Bill 27,

An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL TAX COLLECTORS ACT, 1989

Mr Ballinger moved first reading of Bill Pr25,

An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Tax Collectors of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS ACT, 1989

Ms Collins moved first reading of Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting the Royal Botanical Gardens.

Motion agreed to.

USE OF PRIVATE MEMBERS’ TIME

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Standing order 27(

a) states: “A member, other than a leader of a recognized party in the House or a minister of the crown, may be recognized to make a statement for not more than one and one-half minutes.” That is the quote from the standing orders.

Today, the member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger) made a minute-and-a half-long member’s statement, which I had thought was a ministry statement concerning the bill that he was introducing today. This concerned the official designation of the loon as the bird of Ontario. He is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio). I understand the Ministry of Natural Resources spent some money having a contest to determine what ought to be the official bird of Ontario.

I was surprised that there was no explanation when the member introduced the bill. Clearly, one of two things has happened: It is government policy, that is, it is MNR money in the contest and the intent is to proceed with the naming of the loon as the official bird, in which case the member is acting in his capacity as parliamentary assistant and obviously ought not to have made a member’s statement today. The only other explanation is that indeed the minister has said no and the parliamentary assistant as a private member is saying: “The heck with you guys, I am going ahead on my own.”

I realize that puts you in a predicament, Mr Speaker, as it does all of us, to determine which it is, as far as this direction goes. I would indicate to you, though, that if in fact it is government policy and the parliamentary assistant is acting in that capacity, I think it is inappropriate that we take up private members’ time doing that.

Hon Mr Conway: The member is bringing this matter forward in his capacity as a private member, though he is right to point out that it is also a matter of some interest to the government. Having checked this matter, because I anticipated the honourable member’s likely intervention, it is my understanding that this is not an unacceptable practice. I feel very strongly that an honourable member should be allowed to participate in the private members’ ballot process in any way, shape or form that he or she chooses, as long as it is within the framework of our rules and practices.

Certainly, I will be very interested in the involvement of my honourable friend the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) in the discussions here whenever that ballot item is called, and certainly we will be interested to see how the matter proceeds.

The Speaker: On the point of order raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris), I have looked at the standing order very clearly, and it states, “A member, other than a leader of a recognized party...or a minister of the crown,” may rise and make a statement. That is what took place. I guess we will have to see what happens in due course.

Mr Harris: I understand, but a parliamentary assistant, when he is speaking on a matter of that ministry, has been ruled by you and by others to be deemed to be a minister for the sake of the rules. That is the point I wanted to make and I hope that is clear.

The Speaker: I believe we have something in our standing orders that a parliamentary assistant cannot ask his or her minister a question during question period.

Mr Harris: I will bring all the documentation.

The Speaker: Thank you. I will be glad to look at it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr Pope: I intend to be rather restrained in my comments today, on pain of swift justice from the Sergeant at Arms, but I do want to start by saying that obviously the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), by virtue of his years of service in the Legislature and his abilities, merits our respect. To the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Dietsch): I am told, in fact by the House leader, that he is a fairly friendly guy over a bottle of French red wine.

I also want to indicate to the Treasurer that I am aware, and so are members of this Legislature, that the staff in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics serving the minister are very competent and dedicated public servants who have worked hard and long on this budget and in the service of the people of Ontario.

But my role today is to comment upon the general direction of this government, the policies contained in the budget this particular Treasurer brought down last week and to make some comment on where I see the government heading and some of the problems and benefits of the direction the Treasurer, in his wisdom, has chosen to embark upon.

First, I think for all of us in this province the budget is a unique, once-a-year opportunity to make a comprehensive statement on the finances and administration of the government of Ontario. It is an opportunity that resides initially in the Treasurer and then reflects upon our opportunities in this Legislature to comment on what the Treasurer has said.

As well, it is an opportunity for the Treasurer to reflect upon the state of the Ontario economy. In my submission, contained in that opportunity is an obligation on the Treasurer to produce the books, the financial records of the government, for public scrutiny and comment. I believe that in order to meet the obligation that resides in the Treasurer, the books of our government must be capable of

interpretation by not only anyone in this Legislature but also the residents of this province generally.

They must embody consistent accounting principles. The Treasurer must use generally applied accounting principles and must be straightforward in his production of the numbers. In other words, he cannot cook the books. If the budget is to have any integrity and any usefulness whatsoever in this province with respect to interpreting where we are in government expenditures, government revenues and where the economy of this province stands, it has to be capable of ready understanding and

interpretation by commentators.

I have to comment, in the context of those principles, on this particular budget. When we as a party asked, in the lockup that preceded the budget, what accounting principles were used in the preparation of this budget -- and I took notes at the time -- Treasury staff indicated that they were not a company, were not producing corporate financial statements and therefore had no obligation to use “generally accepted accounting principles.”

By the time the Treasurer appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the morning after the budget was presented, the answer was that they were using “a modified cash basis accounting.” During the course of the proceedings of the finance committee, the Treasurer intervened at that point to comment on what he termed a “policy” matter. I take this to mean that he was personally involved and that he considered it to be a matter of policy as opposed to routine accounting.

What I am referring to is the prepayment on account of 1989-90 financial obligations of this government, prepaying by automatic deposit on 31 March 1989, the very last day of the financial year. Not when the money was received from the federal government or any other source, not in response to an immediate demand by municipalities but as a conscious decision of the government on 31 March 1989, $413 million was deposited by automatic deposit to the accounts of municipalities across this province with respect to unconditional transfer payments.

In addition, $410 million of capital requests were preflowed for the 1989-90 financial year at the end of March 1989, during the 1988-89 financial year.

More important than the flowing of those funds was a “policy” decision to include these sums flowed on account of 1989-90 obligations in the 1988-89 expenditure statements released by this government. There is nothing per se wrong with that, if the Treasurer wishes to do it as a policy decision that he makes and wishes to explain it to the accountants and others who analyse provincial government statements, who are mystified by the extent and timing of these payments of $823 million; but we have to analyse, then, the consequences of that policy decision by the Treasurer on the books of the province.

I think it is clear -- and it was confirmed, I might say to the Treasurer, by Treasury staff in the lockup and afterwards -- that the consequences of that preflow of $413 million on the very last day of March and its inclusion in the previous year’s expenditures were that the expenditure total was $35.5 billion and that the budget plan 1989-90 expenditure was $38.1 billion.

The reality is, if you consider the $413-million payment on the last day of the financial year, 31 March, on account of 1989-90 obligations to be part of the 1989-90 expenditure commitments of this government, it presents a totally different picture of operating expenditures and in fact a rather important variation from what was presented in the budget.

The expenditures for 1988-89 fiscal year are not $35.5 billion but $35.1 billion; the expenditures under the budget plan 1989-90 are not $38.1 billion but $38.5 billion. The effect, I say to the people of this province, is that this government will not have increased its expenditures by seven per cent this year over last, as was presented in the budget, but by almost 10 per cent. An expenditure increase of almost 10 per cent is the net effect.

If we net through the capital advances which were offered with respect to the 1989-90 financial year, because the Treasurer has said that not only did he pay the $410-million advance in respect of 1989-90 but also that he was going to preflow for next year $400-some million, if he decides to do so -- as the Treasurer said last Thursday in reply to questions from the member for Simcoe West (Mr McCague), if he decides to do so he will do it -- if we net out that $400 million in the capital investment figures of the budget, the deficit to finance capital changes dramatically, from $1.5 billion In 1988-89 to $700 million, a difference of $800 million; and the deficit to finance capital deteriorates in 1989-90 to just over $1 billion.

That is a pretty important difference, in terms of

interpretation or perspective of the health of Ontario finances.

It makes a major difference, a double-digit increase in expenditures, a deteriorating deficit position in times of significant revenue increases in the hands of the government of Ontario. It makes a very big difference in the perspective that independent financial analysts and economists will have of this government’s ability to keep the records straight and this government’s ability to keep the books of the province in proper working order.

The Treasurer was asked in question period today -- he had time to reflect upon my statement prior to question period. He had time to reflect upon the questions raised in the budget lockup and in the proceedings last week of the finance committee. Quite frankly, he has decided that this was a policy decision he was responsible for. I acknowledge that it is a policy decision not made by accountants but that he made and has to answer for.

I think it is important to reflect, as my leader did last Thursday, upon the finances of this province since this government came to office in 1985. The Treasurer, in his statement to the Legislature on 11 July 1985, in which, by the way, he indicated that the finances of the province had been relatively well maintained -- I think his words were “relatively well managed” -- prior to his arrival as Treasurer of this great province, in the

summary of revenues attached to the Treasurer’s statement of 11 July 1985, we see taxation revenue of $15.092 billion. This coming financial year, this government will take, from the people of Ontario in tax revenues, over $30 billion.

Since the government came to office in 1985, they have doubled the taxes received from the men and women of Ontario. At the same time, we have seen an increase in expenditures of some 56 per cent. It is very important that the people of this province, the working men and women who are paying their taxes, understand that they are paying 100 per cent more taxes now to the province than they were when the Liberals came to office.

When pressed last Thursday for an explanation for this phenomenal tax grab by a greedy Liberal government, the Treasurer indicated that he needed the additional revenue to resolve the problems that the previous administration had left for him. Yet this is the same Treasurer who in 1985, when he was analysing the books of the province, said they had been relatively well managed.

In this budget, we also have sort of hints that really the Treasurer’s problem is federal transfer payments and the policies of the federal government, yet we see on page 58 that payments from the federal government are actually going to increase this year, to 40.713 from 37.222. That is not a decline in federal transfer payments; that is an increase. I put that in the context of the Treasurer’s penchant for blaming his problems on the federal government.

The fact of the matter is that this government has made a policy decision that has doubled the tax burden for all Ontarians. This government has made a decision for the second consecutive year to increase taxes that Ontarians must pay by $1.3 billion. In the 1988 budget presented by the Treasurer, he increased the rate of tax on gasoline by one cent per litre effective on the budget night, and indicated it would generate $100 million in that fiscal year.

The Treasurer then indicated a one percentage point adjustment in the rate of personal income tax for 1988 and another one percentage point of personal income tax increase for the year 1989, generating an estimated $265 million in the current fiscal year; and increased the Ontario surtax rate for 1988 to 10 per cent, raising an additional $52 million this fiscal year.

He further indicates in his 1988 budget an increase in the retail sales tax rate by one percentage point to eight percent effective 2 May 1988, yielding an estimated $750 million in that year; a one cent per cigarette and a 0.6 cents per gram of cut tobacco increase in the tobacco tax effective midnight the night of the budget to raise an additional $158 million; and an increase in the tax on spirits, wine and beer effective 24 May 1988 to generate an additional $62 million this fiscal year.

Not to be outdone by that monstrous tax grab last year, our friend the Treasurer decided to duplicate the effort this year and go for another $1.3 billion. Having a tremendous appetite and being responsible for those in his cabinet who have these tremendous appetites, we see an additional $1.3 billion. How do we see it? Another increase in personal income tax rates, the third time since the Liberals took office, to 53 per cent of the base federal rate.

We see the gasoline tax hike for the second year in a row, one cent a litre effective midnight the night of the budget, and another cent a litre, in case you still want to drive in this province, on 1 January 1990. On unleaded gasoline the tax went up to 13.3 cents the day after the budget and another cent a litre on 1 January 1990. If you still want to drive in Ontario, you are going to pay $5 a tire additional tax for every tire you purchase effective 1 June 1989.

As well, if you still want to drive after that, vehicle registration fees and driver’s licence fees will be increased, with a special new punitive rate for the greater Toronto area. Registration fees will go up 22 per cent in southern and northern Ontario and will be increased by an additional $24 on top of that in the greater Toronto area, going from $54 to a total of $90 to renew your vehicle registration.

Not to be outdone, if you want to buy what the Treasurer terms to be a gas guzzler, you will pay a new gas guzzler tax on fuel-inefficient cars. The tax will range from $600 to $3,500, depending on the vehicle’s fuel consumption rating. So if you operate or want to buy a gas guzzler, you are going to pay more money to the revenue-guzzling Treasurer and his Liberal government in the province of Ontario.

Then we have a 1.95 per cent payroll tax, which I also call a tax on employment. We now have a tax on employment in this province, a positive disincentive to employ people and maintain them on a payroll.

As Treasury officials indicated last Thursday morning in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, those who are not on a payroll, of course, will pay no payroll tax. So lawyers, accountants, the self-employed and the professionals will not contribute to replace the Ontario health insurance plan premiums they were paying. But a small businessman who did not have an automatic payment system for OHIP premiums will be penalized and will pay an additional 1.96 per cent as a payroll tax to this provincial government. No wonder it has been called by small business representatives a tax on employment, a disincentive to do business in Ontario, another gouging of the small businessman.

Not to be outdone by the stomping to its knees of Toronto by virtue of the tax and fiscal policies of this Treasurer, we then have something called a commercial concentration levy, where for the first time in organized territories, this provincial government will send out tax bills. It is going to get into the land or municipal tax bill business.

Now land owners in Metropolitan Toronto or the greater Toronto area will be sent a tax bill not only from their municipal government, but also from their friendly Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître), who will levy an additional property tax of $1 per square foot on all commercial property and associated parking with gross areas exceeding 200,000 square feet.

If the Treasurer and his cabinet ministers think that that increase is not going to be passed on to small businessmen, who are the tenants of these major facilities, directly through the provisions of their leases, as they know it will be, and if they do not think it is then going to be passed on to the consumer by way of price increases to cover their fixed costs, they are living in a dream world.

In housing, in taxation of direct and indirect land and income, in sales tax policies and in driving a vehicle, this Treasurer and this government have selected the greater Toronto area for special cruel and unusual treatment on which they intend to follow through, and while they are at it, they are going to stomp the rest of the province for good measure.

For the second straight year, $1.3 billion in additional tax revenues have been generated from this Treasurer and from this government, which is a doubling of tax revenues since they came to office. That is not the kind of performance we can support or the kind of budget the people of this province need. It has caused other jurisdictions to openly and publicly brag to other capital investors, potential investors, businessmen and residents that their provinces are better places to live than Ontario because of the tax regime that the Liberal government has put into place.

All one has to do is look at the Saskatchewan budget that was just presented, with its tables of comparative loading of tax on the people of Ontario, compared to Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions. All one has to do is look at the boasts of the Quebec government in its last budget, where it indicates that Quebec is now competitive with Ontario in terms of tax policy, tax load, business regime policies, encouragement to growth and impact on individual small businessmen, working men and women.

These other provincial governments are now saying: “Come and do business with us. Come and reside within our boundaries. We are competitive with, if not better than, the attitude and atmosphere generated by the tax policies of the Treasurer of Ontario.” They are boasting about it, and this Treasurer and this government are the architects of this kind of pressure on Ontario development for the future.

Not only is the impact of this budget and this Treasurer’s policy decisions reflected in tax increases that working men and women will have to pay, not only is it reflected in the general economic climate that is beginning to pervade Ontario vis-à-vis its provincial government and the propensity of its Treasurer and its Premier (Mr Peterson) to tax and increase the tax load, but also we see a reflection of additional financial burdens on the people of this province emanating from decisions that this Treasurer and this government made before the budget was introduced.

I am referring to the flat-lining of transfer payments and unconditional grants to municipalities. I am talking about the freezing of transportation subsidies for municipal roads. I am talking about a decline in transfers to boards of education across this province that has reflected itself in massive, double-digit property tax increases across this province, for which this Treasurer and this government have to bear some responsibility.

I heard someone from Sudbury saying that there were no decreases in transfer payments to boards of education. I have to say that there is a $10-million shortfall to the Carleton Board of Education this year over last year; there is a $57.6-million difference in the transfer payments to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board this year over last year; there is a $17.9-million shortfall to the Ottawa Board of Education this year over last year, and there is a $10-million shortfall in the Peel Board of Education this year over last year.

Every single school board and municipal administration in this province has publicly stated that the reduction of transfer payments from the Treasurer and this Liberal government has forced it to increase taxes.

Many of the news stories over the past month and a half have talked about a 23 percent increase in education taxes in Muskoka, 12 per cent and 15 per cent increases in the municipal property taxes attributable to the boards of education in Timmins, and the list goes on and on. There are double-digit tax increases for property taxpayers in this province because of the decisions that have been made by this government on transfer payments.

These decisions have led directly to tax increases for men and women who are already having more difficulty meeting the financial imperatives of buying and maintaining a home in this province under the Liberal regime than they have ever had before, and those municipal tax increases are going to continue because of the policies of this Treasurer.

I remind the Treasurer that it was in February 1987 that our then leader, the former member for St Andrew-St Patrick, voiced his concern in the budget debate about the treatment of transfer payments during that 1987 budget with respect to municipalities and boards of education. It was true in 1987, it was true in 1988 and it is true again in 1989. It is this government that is responsible for those tax increases and the squeeze that is being placed on municipalities.

If anyone feels that there is not a problem in the hands of the municipalities, perhaps he can explain why the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in its presentation to the cabinet, talked about salvaging the partnership. It has put out The Hidden Agenda: Provincial Priorities at Local Costs. AMO has gone on record with this cabinet and this Treasurer as voicing its concerns about the offloading of responsibilities on to municipalities and municipal councils, responsibilities that should be the province’s and always have been the province’s, with no revenue base from which to operate these programs mandated by the provincial government except for property tax increases.

We talk about the whole range from policing and security in the courtrooms to the requirement of maintaining our road system; to the requirement of installing water and sewage facilities for our citizens, our residents of these municipalities; to Sunday shopping and the imperatives that provides.

We can go through a whole list: housing now, where the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) is saying: “I give up. I’ve got money but I don’t know how to spend it and I don’t know how to tell people to access it, so I am going to force the municipalities to take over housing in this province. I’ll give them a provincial housing policy statement that they have to adhere to. They can cover the costs and small private developers can cover the costs.”

We go from there to the boards of education, which are being told now that in spite of the lack of funding for special education, they are going to have to take even more money out of their expenditure base and fund some part of the kindergarten or early school provisions that this government has mandated. All this additional offloading of responsibilities has to reflect itself in tax increases, in payments that property owners, men and women in their own homes, have to meet every year. These kinds of tax increases are the responsibility of this government, and no one should underestimate the effects of these additional taxes on the daily lives of Ontarians.

There are some initiatives that we have applauded this government for, but we have also indicated there are some ways that it could be saving money. We have yet to hear a response from the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) or the Treasurer. We h