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

April 21, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L050 - Thu 21 Apr 1988 / Jeu 21 avr 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SUNSET REVIEW

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

SUNSET REVIEW

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BUDGET

VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS

BUDGET

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL FUNDING

ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE DAY

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

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

LA SEMAINE DU BÉNÉVOLAT VOLUNTEER WEEK

RESPONSES

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

VOLUNTEER WEEK

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

VOLUNTEER WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

TAX INCREASES

GASOLINE TAX

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

SMALL BUSINESS

SKILLED WORKERS

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

WASTE MANAGEMENT

FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1988

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1988

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

SUNSET REVIEW

Mr. Harris moved resolution 22:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I am saying is that attached to that new program which will come forward this year is the stipulation that would require over a specified period of time -- normally, on sunsetting five years seems to be a standard time -- that would carry with it a proviso that within, let us say five years’ time, it would be reviewed by a committee of the Legislature. That would force the ministry to explain publicly how well the program is doing: is it meeting its objectives; would those objectives be met without the program.

If the committee came to the latter conclusion, I think the obvious conclusion this Legislature would want to come to is to make a recommendation that it quit wasting $50 million a year because it is not doing any good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

The vast majority of Ontario’s agencies are assigned to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a number of criteria I suggest might be looked at.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is my feeling the committee was unanimous in its decision that changes should be made to that particular mandated board.

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

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

He was close to that point, but he did not require the psychiatric help. I do not think there are too many members in this Legislature who would not agree that this young man did suffer some injuries.

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

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

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

I had an opportunity to glance at the list of the agencies, boards and commissions that are in existence today and we have several for which it is questionable if anyone knows what they are really doing. There is one I would like to bring to the attention of the House. It is the Soldiers’ Aid Commission. It was established in 1960 and I certainly think it was set up to serve a specific purpose. If it was, and indeed is serving a purpose, then we should know what that is.

If it was beneficial in 1960, I would think that, with the increases in the inflation factor, whatever was deemed appropriate in 1960 would not be in 1988. After the budget of the Treasurer yesterday, everyone can understand that there are many more cost factors built into living in society today than in 1960.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am looking at a report on policy options which was done in 1986. It points out that, first, the fixed review date frequently becomes an excuse for delay. On a short

schedule of, say five years -- this mentions a three-year schedule; five years would be better -- it seems either that the program has just been approved or else it is time to be resubmitted. Hence, desirable program modifications may be left to be reincorporated into the next round so that the agency can create its own reason for continuing to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are then, let us face it, false expectations about what sunsetting can do. It is not the ticket to small government; rather, it is just the opposite. They are time-consuming, time that Tory members do not now have to participate in various activities that committees should be doing. They do not increase public participation in the process. They do not encourage public reaction to vested interests, but just the opposite.

For example, in a survey done in 35 states in the United States, 70 per cent of those states indicated that the average turnout for a public sunset hearing before a legislative committee was less than 25 people, and that in a country with nearly a quarter of a billion people; as you can imagine, they would usually be lobbyists.

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

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

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

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

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

Mr. Carrothers moved resolution 21:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that treatment for most cancers could be provided in the local hospitals is an immense boon to the patient. I have had the opportunity of visiting a community cancer clinic which is currently being operated at the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and have spoken to some of the patients being treated there. I have also spoken with patients in my own community about their experiences in receiving cancer treatment. I found the difference quite startling.

It is the difference between spending two or three hours receiving chemotherapy at your neighbourhood hospital and spending a day or possibly even two travailing into a larger centre and receiving treatment at a much larger, more impersonal facility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This province-wide data bank would have an immense value in the refinement, adjustment and improvement of methods of cancer treatment. It would enable health professionals in the local cancer clinics to carefully document diagnoses and have available to them a range of experience in the treatment of cancer they might not otherwise have or be able to amass at a local clinic if it were operating independently. They could adjust and refine treatment without referring the patient to the larger centres, saving the patient a great deal of stress and strain and better utilizing our very expensive medical resources.

The outcome of treatments could be evaluated according to agreed-upon standards and new treatments could be tested and rapidly introduced and the less effective ones more easily phased out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The highlight of the afternoon was when the Lieutenant Governor of this province, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, stood beside Susan and presented to her an award as an Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year. Those of us who have had an opportunity to see the Lieutenant Governor take

part in such ceremonies know the kind of dignity and grace he brings to occasions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To do so, we have to ensure wherever possible that the services are available in the local community and that the doctors and the equipment are available in the local hospital.

In the Sault in recent months, we have had very serious headings like “Service to Cancer Patients in Algoma Said Faltering Seriously.” We have the doctors involved with cancer treatment expressing serious concerns about what this government is doing. I will read briefly from this

article in the Sault Star: “Service to cancer patients in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district is faltering because of lack of funding and recognition from the Ontario Ministry of Health, Sault physicians say. The situation has become so critical that doctors have written to Ontario Health minister Elinor Caplan expressing their grave concerns. They ask the Health minister to give cancer care here her urgent consideration and request a meeting the discuss their concerns.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would be reserving the facilities at our centralized cancer clinics -- if you could call it that, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation -- for dealing with very unusual cases of cancer or some of the harder cases to treat, leaving the more routine to be dealt with in the local community and allowing the foundation to use its facilities for research. We would also be creating for it a database.

I would like to underline again that I was very astonished to find that there is not a province-wide database on the results of cancer treatment available to the medical profession right now, and I think the creation of that and making it available to our cancer research centres would be a great boon and aid cancer treatment a great deal and make it much more effective in this province.

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

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

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

Agreed to.

SUNSET REVIEW

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

Ayes

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

Nays

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

Ayes 13; nays 38.

CANCER CLINIC NETWORK

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

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:05 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BUDGET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS

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

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

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

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

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

BUDGET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOOL FUNDING

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

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

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

That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

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

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ISRAEL INDEPENDENCE DAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Remarks in Hebrew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

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

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait grandement plaisir aujourd’hui de déposer en cette Chambre une

loi sur le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario.

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

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

Mr. Laughren: Why 12 years?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Is he jealous?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Statement.

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

An hon. member: Review and renew.

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Runciman: Liberals.

Interjections.

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

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

Interjection.

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

Miss Martel: Speech.

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

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

Il y aura des membres du Nouveau Parti démocratique et du Parti conservateur qui feront

partie de ce comité-là. Cela, je vous l’assure, Monsieur le Président.

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

The goals of the Nordev program closely reflect one of the major aims of the nor