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

April 26, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

RAMADAN

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

BUDGET

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BUDGET

EDMUND C. BOVEY

INJURED WORKERS DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POWER BLACKOUT IN TORONTO

TAXATION

CHILD CARE / GARDE D’ENFANTS

RESPONSES

POWER BLACKOUT IN TORONTO

TAXATION

CHILD CARE

TAXATION

POWER BLACKOUT IN TORONTO

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

RENT REGULATION

INVESTIGATION INTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

REGULATION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION

LONG-TERM CARE

GO TRANSIT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

ABORTION

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GREATER TORONTO AREA

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved second reading of Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

Mr Sterling: For those students here today and for those people who may be watching this debate on television, I want to indicate to them that this is a private member’s bill. I hope this will be a private member’s bill that will be a little bit different in that it may gain the government’s support in calling it for third reading. For the past 12 years in which I have sat as a member of this Legislature, I have only seen approximately half a dozen private members’ bills called for third reading and therefore go through the whole legislative process.

I hope members of the public who support the concept of this bill will take the time to write to the Attorney General and their MPP in support of this legislation if they agree with it. When I introduced this bill two or three weeks ago, I did not expect to get such a number of responses back from members of the public about their feelings on this legislation.

I want to quote a letter that was written to a colleague of mine, the Liberal member for Mississauga East. One paragraph succinctly puts the need for this legislation: “I have seen the need for such legislation in my own family, in my own career as a social worker in the community and as an active volunteer in the hospital setting. Medical technology has outpaced our body of laws.”

It is my attempt today to start the debate in this province in relation to the efforts of many of our older citizens in particular who want to die with dignity. I have introduced in this Legislature Bill 131 and Bill 132, which I am going to talk about, although in the strictest sense we are only dealing with Bill 131. This entire issue centres around the mental capacity or the ability of a person to control his destiny once that mental capacity is lost as a result of an accident or illness.

I have approached the issue from two perspectives and I feel that both are complementary. One proposal is called the living will and the other a durable power of attorney.

Many members are probably aware of the significance of a power of attorney. A power of attorney allows me as an individual to appoint someone else to deal with the matters of my estate or to sign cheques on my behalf or to sign a deed on my behalf. In other words, through the power of a written document, I allow someone else to sign on my behalf if I cannot be there. It used to be that when I gave someone else this right, that power of attorney was lost if in fact I lost my mental capacity. Perhaps some have thought that, since I have indicated I may be seeking re-election again this next time around.

In 1983, when I was privileged to serve in the cabinet of the previous government as Provincial Secretary for Justice, I carried an amendment to the Powers of Attorney Act. At that time, I had considerable consultations with groups like the Alzheimer society and recognized the difficulty for those afflicted with that disease. These individuals could give their power of attorney to a spouse or a friend but, when Alzheimer’s disease took full effect and their mental capacity was lost, the power of attorney became null and void.

The amendment which I proposed at that time and which was carried by this Legislature as a government bill allowed Alzheimer sufferers to plan for their future while they were still mentally competent. They could then and they can now give their power of attorney to someone, knowing that their estate will be taken care of even after they lose the ability to make decisions themselves.

The Powers of Attorney Amendment Act which I am now proposing deals with much the same issue, although it does not deal with assets but with the power to make decisions regarding medical care. I am proposing a durable power of attorney with respect to the consent and withdrawal of consent to medical treatment after we lose the power to make that decision ourselves. It is an idea that is borrowed from the United States where all 50 states have durable power of attorney legislation. More recently, two Canadian provinces have recognized the durable power of attorney, and both Quebec and Nova Scotia have designed their own durable power of attorney legislation.

The durable power of attorney will provide the authority to a given representative that continues even though the person who has given that power of attorney has lost mental capacity. It will allow someone to appoint someone to make medical decisions on his or her behalf. The appointed person can then be called upon by a health care provider to determine if treatment should be given, continued or discontinued.

The purpose of this bill is to allow an individual to personally select a representative who will speak on his or her behalf in medical consent matters before the need arises. In this way, the wishes of the patient cannot be ignored. I feel this will not only benefit the patient but also make it easier for hospital staff, who are often torn between doing what is humane and doing what is legal or what they perceive as being legal. Now they have someone to whom they can turn to make that final determination.

Take the example of an elderly woman who lives with a companion. Let us imagine that she has been estranged from her husband for a number of years but has not gone through the formal process of divorce. She discovers she is suffering from a terminal illness which will affect her mental capacity. She knows that soon she will not be able to make important decisions, including those regarding her future medical care.

She decides she wants her companion to speak on her behalf when she is no longer able to do so. She discusses this matter with her friend and requests that once her disease progresses and her mental capacity is lost, she does not want her dying to be unduly prolonged through artificial means. She now feels confident that her friend will use the best possible judgement when the situation arises.

Under our present law in Ontario, the friend who knows the patient and who knows the wishes of the patient would be ignored because the friend has no legal status and the hospital would feel obliged to ignore this advice and look to the family, however remote they might be. Out of caution, the hospital may decide to continue treatment long after the patient would have wanted it and may continually resuscitate her.

I only need talk briefly about the current situation with regard to the disease of AIDS in Ontario. Unfortunately, in some cases, a family abandons the particular individual who is afflicted with that disease. In those very important cases, I think it would be most prudent for us to pass a piece of legislation like this so that we can give people afflicted with such an awful disease the comfort that at least someone else whom they trust will be able to make decisions on their behalf should they lose mental capacity and be dying.

Under a durable power of attorney, a friend can legally speak on behalf of the patient and make decisions based on the facts at that time. In this way, the wishes of the patient will not be ignored.

I quote the following statement from the New York Times Magazine:

We plan for birth. We plan for college. We plan for taxes. We plan for retirement. But so dreaded are the thoughts of death that only a third of us leave a will when we die, let alone prepare advance instructions on medical care. Laws must keep abreast of social reality, and the reality is that if given a choice in a terminal situation, people generally would not wish to be nor would they expect to be indefinitely kept alive by artificial means.

This bill offers a way to address that situation. I hope that all members will support it.

Mr Polsinelli: Like the member for Carleton, I think I would, in responding to second reading of Bill 131, address the issues contained not only in Bill 131 but also in Bill 132,

An Act respecting Natural Death.

As I understand it, the central principle of this bill is that anyone, when mentally capable of addressing the issue, should be allowed by law to choose and in writing designate another to act in the event of the maker’s subsequent mental incapacity to consent to his or her medical treatment, to refuse consent to treatment or to authorize the withdrawal of medical treatment.

Bill 132 establishes a means whereby a competent person can express his or her intentions with respect to withholding and withdrawing procedures that merely sustain life in the event of a terminal condition and have those intentions respected. It is clear that in this day and age, when medical technology can keep comatose and terminally ill patients alive indefinitely, a means must be found whereby people can have their intentions known and respected.

It is interesting that in the law of Ontario today the only place where a right similar to this actually exists is in the Mental Health Act, where a person may appoint another to make decisions on psychiatric treatment if that person later becomes mentally incompetent. It does not exist in any other area of the law. I think, from my personal point of view, as the member for Carleton and many of the members of this Legislature do, that it should.

Earlier this year the Court of Appeal of Ontario confirmed the principle that competent adults are at liberty to refuse medical treatment even at the risk of death. I think it is important that we perhaps explore a little bit the fundamentals of that case.

That case involved a Jehovah’s Witness who carried a card stating that, as a Jehovah’s Witness, she did not want a transfusion of any blood or any blood-related products. The physician, irrespective of her wishes, administered the transfusion because the patient was close to death. The witness laid a charge of assault against the doctor. The Court of Appeal held in that decision that the doctor had technically committed a battery in not abiding by the direction of the card -- a very important point.

It also stated that the doctor cannot later be held to have violated either his legal duty or professional responsibility towards the patient or the patient’s dependants when he honours the Jehovah’s Witness card and respects the patient’s right to control her own body in accordance with the dictates of her conscience -- a very important point, a confirmation that a competent adult can refuse medical treatment even at the risk of death.

If I can refuse medical treatment for myself and I am confident, why should I not be able to designate and delegate that responsibility to another competent adult? I support the intention of this bill. This bill would establish an enduring power of attorney that would give people the means of expressing their intentions through their attorney and providing directions to their attorney.

As the honourable member for Carleton knows, this concept in a more elaborate and extended form is part of the recommendations of the Fram committee. The Fram committee is a government committee, the Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision-Making for Mentally Incapable Persons, whose report I am sure the member has; it was published in October 1988.

That committee was chaired by Stephen Fram, who is counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General, and was composed of five government ministries and offices and nominees of many organizations with interests in this area of law. For example, involved in the committee were the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, the Ontario Association for Community Living, the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, the Alzheimer Society of Metropolitan Toronto, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ontario Branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

It is clear that this very issue on substitute decision-making and a living will is under constant advisement by the government. The government has taken an active role in looking at that issue and seeing what should be done. Quite frankly, along with the Ministry of Health, which has the responsibility of dealing with natural death, we are at the point where we can make a cabinet submission and have cabinet deal with the very important policy issues that have to be considered in this matter.

While we feel that Bill 132,

An Act respecting Natural Death, has been adequately addressed by the member, Bill 131, the one dealing with the durable power of attorney, does require some amendments and is technically weak in the way that it is structured. A number of things should have been put in the bill that would make it a little bit better.

For example, in dealing with the durable power of attorney, should we not ensure that there are safeguards in the bill so that anyone who has been given this durable power of attorney is competent himself, do we want to ensure competency on the part of the person who is getting the power of attorney, do we want to ensure procedural safeguards in terms of the signing of the actual power of attorney, do we want witnesses -- that kind of stuff? We may even want a centralized record, for example, of these durable powers of attorney. How do we ensure that in fact a durable power of attorney was given?

We want any advocates to visit the individual prior to executing this document.

While we can support these two bills and their concepts -- we think they are good ideas and I will personally be voting in favour of them -- I think they do require a little further study and analysis in terms of the actual bills themselves, in terms of the procedural safeguards that are required in the bills. So while I will be supporting the bills, we look forward to the government introducing its own legislation in this regard, hopefully later on this year.

Mrs Grier: I am really pleased to have the opportunity to participate in a debate on the subject of the Powers of Attorney Amendment Act, as well as the companion legislation, or Bill 132,

An Act respecting Natural Death, the living will, which would recognize the right of adult persons to make written declarations instructing physicians to either withhold or withdraw life-sustaining procedures in the event of a terminal condition. It is difficult to discuss Bill 131, the one that is particularly before us today, which would provide for a durable power of attorney, without also making reference to Bill 132.

I want to commend the member for Carleton for bringing forward this legislation and certainly indicate my support and my hope that the government will look very seriously at the pieces of legislation that the member for Carleton has introduced and move forward to put them into the law of this province.

The question of how and when we are going to die is something that we do not discuss very often in our society, but that does not mean that there is not a broad interest in it. As people get older, they think about it. They may not talk about it with their friends or their companions, but they certainly think about how the end of their life is going to occur and what that means, and in the vast majority of the cases they want to make preparation for that in a way that will not cause problems for their families.

If I have found one thing with people as they get older, it is their very real concern that they not be a burden. They want to have things laid out, in the majority of cases, so that their families and friends will not be faced with making difficult decisions, so that the persons, as they grow older, have laid out very clearly their own wishes and what they want to see happen as they become older and as they become, in many cases, unable to look after themselves.

It is ironic that, with the advances of science and with the technology of health care, we have always been way ahead of changes in the legal and the social systems of our society. We have the technology to prolong life naturally, so that people are dying at a much later stage than they did even 20 or 30 years ago and we have the means of prolonging life artificially. As people approach their three score years and 10, or in many cases their four score or four score years and 10, I find that they fear death less than they fear the loss of independence and the indignity that goes with approaching of the end of their lives.

We have said so often in our policies and statements in this House and outside it how much we wish to support the independence of the elderly. We talk about providing home care systems, we talk about providing Meals on Wheels, we talk about providing the means by which people can remain in their own homes, but we do not provide the legal means to allow them to translate that independence into making their own decisions.

Often the support systems we have put in place mean that people do remain out of institutions longer than they might have in earlier decades. The consequence is that when they are institutionalized they often are much more seriously ill than they would have been in earlier decades.

So not only do they have the dislocation of moving from their own place, their familiar surroundings, their familiar neighbours who have perhaps helped them over the years, and the dislocation of going into an institution, they are faced with the inevitable indignities that go with being institutionalized as they get more ill and less able to look after themselves, the indignities of being cared for, of perhaps being fed, the loss of privacy that goes with being institutionalized and frequently having to share accommodation, which was not something that they had done up to that point in their life.

They want very much to have control over the final decisions that are to be made about them, those decisions as to whether or not they require medical treatment.

The kind of society we have become also often means that when those people get to that stage they are not dealing with the old family doctor who has known them from childhood, or even from middle age. They may well be being cared for by people who are comparative strangers and who do not know the personality of their patient in the days before that person became ill and therefore may not recognize the stubborn streak of independence that an elderly gentleman is showing to be something that he has shown from childhood, not just something that is attributable to his final illness.

We have a medical profession that is, I think with justice, fearful of the legal repercussions of taking decisions with respect to a patient about which it may entirely sure. Often, sadly, we have a medical profession that does not listen carefully enough to its patients; it tends to know best and not hear what is in fact being said to it by its patients.

Also because of the changes in our society, we have many people whose families are not there when they reach their latter years, especially if they are poor and have been isolated, have come here from a different country or have come to Toronto in the latter stages of their lives. So there is not a family or somebody who has known them intimately and who is able to support them as they try to exert independence in an institution and decide what they want to happen to them.

The legislation that has been suggested and that is before us today is perhaps not legislation that everyone would want to take advantage of, but it does provide a means for those who want to plan, who want to think ahead and select, while they are still competent, someone who will carry out their wishes. I think the legislation is long overdue and I think it has widespread support. I hope the government will not be fearful of the opposition that I know will arise from those who feel we ought not to be giving people the power to make their own decisions over life and death.

I hope the government will recognize that the legislation being proposed today has been implemented in many other jurisdictions, in all 50 states in the United States. I believe we will find, when we discuss it more broadly, that there is a broad general support for it and that the government will not drag its feet, will not try to reinvent the wheel by coming up with legislation that it can claim to be its rather than something that was introduced by an opposition member, but will move forward and proceed through the process of bringing Bill 131 to law. As I say, l am very proud to support it.

Mr Cousens: We are seeing an age in which people are thinking far more about sensitive issues that go beyond the present, this day in our lives as we have it, to make sure that we have established the context for whatever could happen. We have really had a closed mind to some subjects, but I think medical science and the changes that have taken place, the high publicity on specific incidents, have allowed people to become more educated on what their rights are, what their needs are, what their wishes should be.

As we discuss these two bills before us today, the Powers of Attorney Amendment Act and the Natural Death Act, which is part of it, I think there has to be a great deal of sensitivity to what an individual wants and at what particular time he or she wants to have it.

I have been very involved with the Kidney Foundation of Canada for a number of years, and it was largely through it, but other groups too, that we have on our licence form now the consent, under the Human Tissue Gift Act, where people can sign the back of their licence and certain decisions can be made following an untimely accident, or whatever happens to you, that your body parts can be passed on to someone else, again as a living gesture to someone else.

Something very meaningful takes place in that, and that is something that has happened within the last number of years that makes a statement as to what you want to have done with yourself.

I think what the member for Carleton has brought forward in this bill brings forward another level of sensitivity to the way the law presently interprets what one would want to have done. I see this as a decision that I would strongly support as part of the whole movement wherein you have a power of attorney. As it stands now, as I understand it, not being a lawyer, you do not have that ability to act on medical needs for a person when you have the power of attorney unless you are a close family relative. So a friend who is close to a person who is in need could then be given this power so he could act on his or her behalf when the need arises.

One of the sensitive areas has to be with those victims of AIDS who are estranged from their families. They do not have a person of their own family who will become involved in their illness or their death or in what is happening with them in the same intimate way as a close family member might and would. In an instance such as that, this act would allow a friend who understood this person, who cared enough for him, to help him in making the right decisions as they pertain to his health.

We are seeing new drugs, we are seeing new respirators, we are seeing efforts in medical science to keep people alive who would have died. I guess one of the classic cases in the mid-1970s was that of Karen Ann Quinlan. After the parents won the case before the courts to have the respirator disconnected, she continued to live in a coma for some nine years. I guess to me the fight and battle they had with regard to the disconnection of the medical services, only to the extent of the respirator, was a battle where one really wonders whether that should be allowed to happen.

I am saying there is a benefit now for someone who does not have family and who does not have that intimate contact, someone who trusts you and someone whom you trust. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it means you will have someone else who can respect your own wishes as a Jehovah’s Witness regarding a transfusion or some other act. If it has to do with someone of a deep religious belief that goes beyond what the Jehovah’s Witness would ask for, then you have someone. If it is outside the family and you are no longer part of that family, someone else can fight on your behalf.

When the member for Carleton brought in these two companion pieces of legislation, he did bring in the whole suggestion of the living will. When you look at that, a living will really is a statement that a person makes, in writing, that if a terminal or irreversible condition occurs and that individual cannot communicate, then treatment should be discontinued. Its essence is that life-sustaining procedures should not be used to artificially prolong life. It does not specifically name a representative, but it does give general directions for medical care in these situations.

The living will would allow health care providers to obey the wishes of the individual without any liability for their actions. It also imposes penalties for those who refuse to comply with such a request.

As we look to the future, I have to say that there is a tremendous need for all our society to look at our legal needs, at what our own will is, at the action we want to have taken with regard to power of attorney.

Should these two bills pass in the Legislature -- and I sense a strong consensus, among those who have spoken anyway -- legislation could be brought forward, which would have strong support from the members of this House, that allows for that individual decision to be made with the best interests of each one of us at heart as to what medical attention would be continued to be given and also what would be the nature of the services provided should it be a very terminal illness and certain action needs to be taken that you would want to have taken.

I do not think society should legislate this for all people. I think the strength of what the member for Carleton has brought forward is it allows each of us to legislate what we want to have done for ourselves. That is a democracy at work. It allows freedom within society where there is a framework where that freedom shows great respect for each human being.

I think that we have to have more respect for all of us. Last night, when Toronto went into darkness, we saw that. People who came from other parts of Canada and the United States were so surprised that it was such a peaceful city even in the darkness. Let it be peaceful in the hearts and minds of all people when they make up their mind as to what they want to have done for themselves with regard to their life and their death and before their death, dealing with it intelligently, dealing with it not only as if it is just for seniors and elderly. Karen Ann Quinlan was a young lady who died at 31.

What about our young people and people of all ages? Maybe it is something we should think of when we get married. Maybe it is something we should think of before we go to university. At some point, we should be at least stopping to consider what it is we want to have done with regard to ourselves.

[Interruption]

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): I would like to mention to those guests in attendance that, unfortunately, you are not allowed to participate in the debate.

Mr Daigeler: I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on a subject of grave importance for people during the last stages of their lives on this earth. The issue is not a new one, but the member for Carleton is right in drawing all our attention once again to a serious issue of private and public morality.

At the outset, let me say that I agree with the basic premise and intentions of the member as mentioned in his speech today and in the material which he has shared with us beforehand. It is indeed a basic principle of medical ethics that individuals have the final say over the treatment by others of their physical or mental condition.

With the ever-increasing development of medical technology, this basic right has become blurred. Situations often occur where individual organ functions can be maintained with little or no prospect of a reasonable restoration of people’s health. Often enough, by then they have become unconscious or incapable of making informed decisions about their own treatment. In situations such as these, the initiatives proposed by the member are already followed in many health care settings. The attending medical personnel and the relatives and friends who care about the dignity of the dying person can find comfort in knowing the previously expressed basic mindset of the patient.

Personally, I have often felt that some highly complex medical techniques to prolong life by a few months or even years are a sign of vitalistic idolatry rather than true improvements to our quality of living. Life in this world is not eternal, nor should it be our highest objective. To pretend otherwise takes away our serene peace of mind in adverse conditions and introduces a hopeless frenzy of avoiding death at all costs.

While I have no problems, from my non-legal perspective, with the durable power of attorney amendment before us, I do have some reservations about the proposed legalization of the so-called living will. The member himself said in his press conference speech that the term “living will” is a misnomer. As with the title of the member’s act, it would be much better, therefore, to speak of a natural death will. We are dealing with highly artificial efforts to prolong the process of dying rather than efforts to extend life. It would be more appropriate and precise, therefore, to speak about “death-prolonging” rather than “life-sustaining” whenever this term is used in the current text of the bill.

Moreover, I find it unnecessary and in fact quite ambiguous to say that the withdrawal of death-prolonging procedures “shall be deemed not to be suicide,” as the bill presently does in

section 7. Precision of language is exceedingly important, lest we break the radical distinction between artificial prolongation of death and the deliberate shortening of one’s life.

I am also somewhat concerned about introducing too many formal, legal provisions in times when we need, above all, care, love and good, responsible judgement. I hope the member does not want to introduce in this country the American trend towards litigation and legalization of most aspects of life. Doctors, nurses, family members and friends should rely foremost on their good, responsible and informed judgement at the time of death.

Moreover, with the increasing emphasis on the need for natural death wills, it may become standard practice to treat patients as long as technically possible unless they have signed such papers. I know the member does not want to see this happen, but it may be an unintended consequence of codifying initiatives that may be quite useful as a matter of practical convenience.

Our awkward parliamentary decision-making process allows for only yes or no votes during private members’ hour. This black and white approach fails, in my opinion, to do justice to meaningful amendments that might make our legislative projects more acceptable to everyone. However, I know that the final okay for today’s bill or bills must come from cabinet, and I am confident they will take my comments and those of my colleagues into careful consideration. I will therefore support this bill today and recommend it to the government for further refinement.

Mr Reville: I will be supporting Bill 131, standing in the name of the member for Carleton, but I notice that the debate continues to get broader and includes Bill 132,

An Act respecting Natural Death, which I would also be glad to support if it were indeed before the House at this time, which it is not. In fact, it would be interesting, seeing that they are indeed companion bills, if we could have a process whereby both the bills could be dealt with at the same time. There is a way to do that, I should think. It seems to me that although I would support Bill 131 receiving third reading without delay, it is unlikely that the process will occur.

Accordingly, I will support any motion made by the member for Carleton that this matter be sent to a committee. At committee we could discuss matters more properly discussed under Bill 132 as well, because these are issues that are increasingly important to us as medical technology has advanced to the stage where people may be kept alive, in a manner of speaking, almost indefinitely, although the quality of the life is very much in question.

The member for Nepean describes the private members’ hour as being a very black and white process. I do not agree at all. Whenever this chamber is considering legislation, on second reading we consider the principles of the legislation. Oft-times one votes yea because one supports the principles of the legislation but makes comment about amendments that one would like to see to the legislation in the committee of the whole House stage or in the standing committee stage. It is quite common, in fact, to support legislation on second reading in hopes of obtaining appropriate amendments and having the broad public discussion that I know we all like to see.

I have a personal connection with the Dying with Dignity people, because when I was an alderman at Metropolitan Toronto council, I was asked to chair one of their forums where the issues were debated from many sides. We had a fascinating full debate with different points of view being advanced, and with people from other jurisdictions, notably the Hemlock Society, in attendance to describe the way they approach these issues.

For me, Bill 131 is an empowering piece of legislation because it enables individuals to provide someone who they trust with directions regarding what will happen to them if they are unable to give those directions themselves. I think that has to be one of the most essential rights that an individual can have and I regret any diminution of those rights, wherever those rights may be decreased by medical practice or by our law.

The initiative of the member for Carleton is to be applauded, and I urge other members of the Legislature to vote in favour of Bill 131 at second reading, to support requests for hearings if they are made and to be prepared to come to the hearings and discuss both the Powers of Attorney Amendment Act and

An Act respecting Natural Death, because I think they belong together.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support this legislation, Bill 131, and also to express my support for Bill 132, a companion piece of legislation commonly known as the living will.

I might also mention that in the gallery today are two constituents from Mount Forest, Mr and Mrs Earl Hunt. Mrs Hunt was very instrumental in promoting the concept of the living will in the county of Wellington and has been very supportive of the initiatives of the member for Carleton.

I congratulate my good friend and colleague the member for Carleton for bringing forth this legislation, because it is something that in my opinion is needed, especially for the benefit of our seniors. It is not legislation that is mandatory in any sense of the meaning, but it is permissive and it allows individuals to make their own decisions on something that is fundamentally their decision to make.

I would feel that if individuals, while they still have their full faculties, their mental abilities, decide that they wish certain things to happen, that they have enough confidence in an individual to entrust him with this very serious power of attorney, they should have that right to do so.

There are decisions that can be made at the time while the individual is in his full mental state that cannot be addressed at the time of an imminent death. Certainly, if the individual did not have this type of power of attorney provision, then the family and the doctors would be placed in the onerous position of having to make the decision. This would allow the person who felt that he was close to reaching the end to make some final decisions at the time as he so wished.

This, to me, makes a lot of sense. The living will goes further and has a lot of aspects to it that are certainly worth consideration. I hope that the government will at least give enough permission to the member to allow the bill, if not to go to committee, to certainly bring in a companion or similar piece of legislation so that the Legislature does have the opportunity to debate it and to put forward reasons for such legislation.

Miss Roberts: There are approximately two minutes left of our time. I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House to allow the presenter of this bill to have that two minutes.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Elgin has asked for unanimous consent to allow the remaining two minutes for the government party to be attached to the honourable member who has presented the legislation.

Agreed to.

Mr Sterling: I am just waiting to see how much time I have, to calculate where I am going to start and where I am going to end on this matter.

During this debate, members have referred to both Bill 131 and Bill 132 and have addressed the concepts of both the durable power of attorney and the living will. Therefore, I would ask unanimous consent of this Legislature that I be permitted to move also second reading of Bill 132 at the same time. Then, when we come to vote, we will be able to vote on both Bill 131 and Bill 132.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has brought forward a proposal for consent for allowing consideration of voting on Bill 132. Member for Carleton, are you going to be further discussing the bill in front of us?

Mr Sterling: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: You will. The honourable member has requested consent for the consideration of voting at noon with the companion legislation. Do we have consent?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: We do not have consent.

Mr Sterling: I would like to point out to the people from the Dying with Dignity group that the Liberal members of the House were not willing to call second reading of Bill 132.

I also want to indicate to the members who are working so hard with regard to this whole issue that today we are going to see the Liberal members vote in favour of Bill 131. But in essence what they are saying to all members is, “We are not going to permit Mr Sterling and this piece of legislation” --

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order to the honourable member: You should address the chair.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I want to indicate to them that the reason so many people in Canada and Ontario are cynical towards the whole process of politics is that we find within this process a situation where members will stand up and say they support a particular principle but they are saying, for very specious reasons, “We want the government to get credit for this legislative manoeuvre and you’re going to have to wait a bloody long time before you’re going to have this legislation in front of the House again.”

Mr Fleet: This is really a cheap point. You want to mislead the people sitting in the audience. This is really misleading.

Mr Sterling: It is true. The parliamentary assistant for the Attorney General was the leadoff speaker --

Mr Fleet: It’s not the whole truth. Why don’t you tell the whole truth? You’re the one who wants to change the rules.

The Acting Speaker: Order, honourable member for High Park-Swansea. As you well know, under our standing orders interjections are allowed from time to time, I say to the honourable minister, but a continuing, rambling dialogue is not permitted.

Mr Sterling: The member for High Park-Swansea has been here for a short period of time and maybe, if we are graced in the next election, we will have people who will think more forwardly in terms of dealing with legislation.

I say to the people of the province and the people who are particularly concerned about this issue, Mrs Hunt, who was introduced by my friend, represents the Women’s Institute of Ontario, 24,000 strong in 1,000 different branches. She has led the fight for the women’s institute to have legislation like this passed. She wrote to the Attorney General four months ago and has not had the courtesy of a response from the Attorney General on this matter.

What kind of hope do we in the Legislature of Ontario, or the people of Ontario, have for legislation like this to come to the fore, to be introduced by the government and to be carried by the government? The fact of the matter is, I offered this legislation. The Attorney General sat across from me when this legislation was introduced three weeks ago. He applauded the introduction of the legislation. I said to him that very day: “If you have objections to this legislation, call me. I’ll change the legislation even before we have second reading.” The fact of the matter is, I have never had the courtesy of a call back from him on the piece of legislation.

I invite the members of the government side to vote against this legislation if they truly do not want the legislation seriously discussed and passed by this Legislature into third and final reading form. I am going to ask this Legislature that the bill, if it receives the vote of the majority of the members in here, be sent out to a committee so that we will have the opportunity to hear different groups talk about this piece of legislation.

If 20 members on that side rise and block that move, I want the members of the public to understand where the Liberals are on this legislation. They are jealous of the fact that somebody has been progressive enough to bring this legislation to the fore. I did not want to give this speech, but it is necessary to talk with regard to this process. Those of my friends who have been here for 12 years with me in this Legislature are getting sick and tired of the fact that a member

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The speaker is imputing motives on very sensitive matters, matters of living and dying, and people on this side agree with him on. But he is turning it into a political -- well, I am not going to use the words that really apply. Graveside politics.

The Acting Speaker: We will not discuss whether it indeed is a point of order, but the point has been made.

Mr Sterling: I did not want to make the speech that I have just made, but I am cynical of the attitude of this government. I want this legislation to pass, and the only way we can get anything done with these guys is to cajole them into something.

The Acting Speaker: We have had the concluding remarks of the honourable member for Carleton on Bill 131,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act. Time having expired on this legislation, we will now look forward to the vote at noon.

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr Carrothers moved resolution 49:

That in the opinion of this House, since the problems facing society and government are becoming increasingly more complex; and that the most valuable resource that the Ontario government or any other government has are the people working within it; and that the principles behind the organization and structure of the Ontario government have not been examined for some time, the Ontario government should review its structure and its operating and human resource practices with a view to simplifying and restructuring its operations so as to meet the demonstrated needs of its citizenry in a creative, flexible and responsive manner.

Mr Carrothers: In the few minutes available to me, I want to speak a bit, not about policymaking or how we make policy in government or really about how we exercise financial controls, but about what takes place after we have done that, with the delivery of those policies, with the delivery of the services that we decide we need and we decide we are going to fund to the public, what you might call the business side of what we do in government. I feel that the organization of our civil service is too rigid to allow flexible and effective delivery of services and is too rigid to allow those in the civil service who are performing these tasks to do the best job they are capable of.

In the few minutes that I have, I want to comment on how we got where we are in terms of the principles of organization of our civil service, make some comments on what this means in practice, give some examples of what we might do to change matters and, if time remains, talk about what is going on in some other jurisdictions in the world.

In order to understand the principles that underlie our civil service, we need to look back to the last century -- to 1854, in fact -- to a report which was given to the United Kingdom government called the Trevelyan-Northcote Report. That report set out the principles on which the United Kingdom civil service was to be organized and the principles which we incorporated into our civil service when we organized it in 1918.

The principles outlined in that report were to have a permanent civil service and a professional civil service, one that was oriented towards policy and one that was oriented towards analysis and problem-solving. That was very appropriate to the day. Government in those days really set the context in which things operated. It was not actively involved in what goes on. But as we have seen since the Depression and the Second World War, governments have become much more active, much more involved in our daily life and in fact carry out tasks, perform functions and carry out business activities.

I think what has happened is that this new, very active role has been grafted on to the old policy-oriented role, but that old organization, those basic principles, have stayed rooted in policy.

When we modernized our civil service here in Ontario in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we focused again on our policymaking activities, how we are going to co-ordinate policy, and our financial activities. The feeling at the time seemed to be that if we had the plan straight and got the money in order, perhaps everything else would somehow work out.

I am not sure that is enough. I think we need to look at the actual traditions and principles that operate within our civil service, the culture, if you will, within which that civil service operates.

A policy-related organization is one that focuses very much on control and on rigidity, and it speaks of procedures and of structures, all of which is very appropriate when you are coming up with policy, particularly in government.

As we all know, government is not business. It does not operate within a marketplace. It cannot very easily test by going into the market whether its ideas work or do not. So you have to be very careful when developing policy. You need checks. You need counterbalances. You need quite an elaborate structure to make sure that the policy which you are bringing forward is actually appropriate and is going to work, because the results or the impact that you are having with that policy may not be immediately evident. You may not be able to change quickly enough.

But I am not sure that this rigidity and this focus on control is completely appropriate when we move into actually implementing those policies, when we carry out the various actions or roles which government has taken on for itself, for when you move into carrying on a task, you start moving into questions of action, not analysis, you start talking about innovation, risk-taking, adaptability, not caution, and you need to encourage such things as motivation and leadership, not analysis, within the management structure, for you are no longer problem-solving; you are actually carrying out a task.

I think the rigidity which we seem to have carried forward within the organization of our civil service often stifles these very needs or these very attempts at innovation or adaptability, and stifles any attempt to motivate or lead within our civil service. It becomes too difficult. Too many people have to be consulted.

What we end up with is an organization which tends to look inward, tends to look at its own policies and structures and tends to relate to those and does not look outward to the people it is trying to service, does not look outward to its customers, if I could use that term.

I think if we look at how we are organized and try to change that internal culture, we may find there is a great deal of potential within our civil service to do things quite differently, a great deal of potential which we can free up. We might be very surprised with the results that we can achieve.

What could we do? Perhaps we could look at making some changes to the reporting structure within the civil service. We might separate out reporting for policymaking from reporting on implementation and allow those who are implementing our policies to actually report to the very highest levels within the civil service, make them visible, allow them to be seen.

The criticism has often been made that the policy focus which we seem to have in the civil service or it has around here tends to mean that the route to the top is through policy and that those who are the most ambitious tend to evolve to that role. We need to make the actual implementation of tasks much more important, because in fact I think something like upwards of 90 per cent of those involved in the civil service are actually carrying out tasks, not making policy. Perhaps we need to look at whether we can make some changes to allow that implementation to take place more effectively.

We might want to look at delegating more authority. I have been very surprised at how little delegation takes place within the civil service. It is a surprise to me, coming from business, as to how much authority is kept at the very top levels. I was surprised when speaking to someone who has a job within the civil service, quite a senior one, who often has to travel on very short notice, and yet he has to have four people approve his travel. It seems rather odd.

Surely that person could be given a budget, maybe based on last year’s travel, which he could then use as he saw fit and report monthly, quarterly, whatever is appropriate, but let him get on with the job, rather than having to ask permission every time he wants to do something.

That points to another problem which has often been commented upon in the public service or the public administration in Canada; that is, somehow we have confused the concept of making someone accountable for results or accountable for his job with controlling him when he does the job, and we have tended to focus on the latter and made the whole organization quite stifling and quite rigid.

We might also want to look at organizing how we perform tasks quite differently. We might want to look at using agencies to deliver services, perhaps agencies that could deliver services on behalf of several ministries. I know that, speaking as the small business advocate in this province, I am often speaking with small businesses that have difficulty dealing with government because they have to deal with five and six offices, all of which operate differently. Perhaps we could find some way to have one office deal with that group of people.

I have also noticed that when you use agencies or some sort of self-contained administrative structure, those working within it feel a greater sense of identity with what they are doing. They can see the results of their work, they can see the problems, and when they make a change they can see the result. They can appreciate what has been accomplished. They also start talking about their clients, they start looking outwards to those they are serving, and the whole organization becomes more flexible and more adaptable. I think we need to look at these types of things.

In the two minutes remaining, I would like to just comment briefly on what is taking place in the United Kingdom and what does take place in Sweden in terms of these issues.

The United Kingdom has recently completed some 15 years, I believe, of study of its civil service. A report to the Prime Minister has come out called Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps, and it makes a number of recommendations for changes in the UK civil service. What is interesting to me is that this report recommends that the making of policy be separated structurally from the implementation of policy and that different types of organization be used for each and actually recommends the greater use of agencies in the implementation of policy within the UK civil service.

It is also talking about changes to the concept of ministerial responsibility, but I think that is outside what I am talking about today.

What is also interesting is in Sweden the civil service as we know it is a very small body; it deals only with policy. In fact, the ministers are only responsible to the Swedish Parliament for the policy which is developed within the civil service. The policy is then implemented by some 80 agencies, boards and commissions which report to the legislature through different channels. So again in that country they have separated policy from implementation, a very different philosophy from the one we use, but one which we might very usefully study when we think about how our civil service works.

In the few minutes that I have had to comment, I hope I have shown how our civil service, which started as a policymaking organization but then expanded, has not adapted its internal culture to the new and expanded role of government within our society. In an era where flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness are considered the keys to success, we need to see whether we can bring some of these features into the operation of our civil service. I think we owe it to the public, which expects very relevant and efficient government.

I think we also owe it to those who work within our civil service to put them in a situation where they are able to do the very best job they can and bring their talents to bear in the most effective manner.

Mr Philip: I apologize to the mover of the motion for not hearing the first part of his speech. I have been involved, as he will know, in chairing the standing committee on public accounts, which is dealing with an analogous matter this morning, namely, the accountability of agencies and the way in which we can work through the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts committee to make agencies more accountable and to have the Provincial Auditor’s office operate in a more effective way. I will be returning to that committee momentarily, but I will read the comments of the other members who will have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

I appreciate the comments of the mover of the motion because, by listening to the comments I have heard, at least I have some idea or sense of the direction in which he wants to go. That was not clear from the motion, which I feel lacked a certain amount of focus. I think a motion, if it is to be useful, should be fairly clearly defined and not simply create an eclectic exercise which is not likely to have an end that is useful.

I want to attempt, in the very few minutes I have in this debate, to try to focus on some of the areas in which I think we can go.

The mover of the motion was talking about the Swedish social democratic system and the way in which government there really is decentralized, where there is a much smaller civil service and where I think there is probably a more democratic system in the sense that there is more participation by various community groups, interested parties, by labour and management and government.

I want to say that while I think we should be moving towards that system, we have to understand that the social democratic system of Sweden, quite different from either the Marxist system of the Soviet Union, which is breaking down at the moment, or the capitalist or free market system, has systematically set up a whole series of structures that have allowed for decentralization. Because these structures are in place and because there is a way of feeding in the various groups and creating a partnership, I think they are a lot farther advanced than we are and therefore that kind of decentralization is quite workable in their system. It is certainly something we should be moving towards.

Let me also say, however, that rigidity comes not from a system that has too direct a line of accountability but, rather, where the accountability line is fuzzy. If a public servant really does not know whom he or she is answerable to or what he or she is accountable for and is therefore open to reprimand from a variety of sources, he or she is more likely to be conservative or indeed to do nothing, because it is frequently harder to be penalized for doing nothing than for doing something that any one of a number of people who feel they have some kind of power over you can reprimand you for.

Therefore, I think what we have to do is look at the system and say that each person should know exactly whom he or she is accountable to. That kind of security then allows one to be innovative. You may decide that the person you are accountable to is so rigid that you cannot do anything, in which case you have to make a career choice, but at least there is a value to not being accountable to a fuzzy bureaucracy out there where you can be called out or reprimanded by any one of a variety of people who, for whatever reason, seem to think they are your boss.

In 1985, Price Waterhouse completed a study commissioned by the then Conservative government. The study, as members will know, was titled A Study of Management and Accountability in the Government of Ontario. In the course of their work, the consultants interviewed and subsequently reviewed their conclusions with a number of ministers, with all the deputy ministers, with the former chairman of the public accounts committee and with the Provincial Auditor. They also met with a variety of other people from other countries.

They looked at the practices of the federal government, other provinces, the United Kingdom and Australia. So it seems to me that a starting point in implementing the resolution before us might be to review the Price Waterhouse study and its recommendations in the light of what has or has not happened in the last five years since it was tabled in this House.

I cannot deal with the whole report in the few minutes that I have, but let me just quote about three paragraphs which I think are particularly significant from pages 5 and 6 of the Price Waterhouse report:

“Cabinet should be assured that Management Board has sufficient authority to ensure that ministries are complying with board policies as well as maintaining a satisfactory standard of management. We believe that the board has, under its act, the powers needed to exercise this authority.

“To strengthen the accountability relationship between deputy ministers and Management Board for administrative rules and management practices, our proposal is to provide for formal delegation of authority from the board to each deputy for the board’s management policies. The deputy will then make decisions and ensure compliance within this delegated authority. In this way, the deputy would be accountable to the board for the ministry’s actions under the delegated authority. The board should be responsible to work out a satisfactory mechanism for delegating authority to and monitoring information on compliance by each ministry.”

I highlight the last part, because I think that is where there has been some need both in this government and the previous government in dealing with the problem of accountability.

It goes on to say on page 6:

“Management Board must be able to act if a ministry does not comply with board policies or decisions. Beyond instructing the minister and the deputy that compliance is imperative, the board should have a clearly understood mandate to go further by withdrawing authority it has delegated to the deputy. This would be an action of last resort, taken only after the approval of cabinet.”

It is fairly clear to me that successive Chairmen of Management Board, be they Conservative or Liberal, have failed in this regard. We see examples of the results in the litany of revelations by the Provincial Auditor and in studies done by the standing committee on public accounts.

I believe history will show that there is in every parliamentary government a certain amount of tension between the office of the head of state, be it the Premier or Prime Minister, and the Chairman of Management Board or the Treasury Board, as we sometimes see that office called. But I believe that nowhere in recent times has there been a greater example of the fear in our public service of faceless mandarins in the Premier’s office, in the office, if you like, of the head of state, undermining the role of Management Board than we have in the present government.

Creativity, if it is to flourish, must have a certain stability, and we have many innovative and creative public servants, and indeed we have many excellent deputy ministers, but we have to give them the assurance that their line of command is direct, that they know whom they are accountable to and that they cannot be second-guessed by people who are faceless in the Premier’s office.

It seems to me that if this resolution were to be very effective, it might be useful to have an independent study done of the relationship of the role played by each of the players in the individual ministries, the players in Management Board and the players in the Premier’s office. I am not sure that such a study would be terribly complimentary of the players in the Premier’s office, but I think that it would be a useful study to be done and indeed it would both improve the effectiveness of Management Board and hopefully might reduce some of the unpredictable actions that seem to happen and stem from the Premier’s office.

Needless to say, any action resulting from today’s resolution would have to take into account the effects of the implementation of the strategies for renewal program of the Human Resources Secretariat. If I had a few hours to speak about that, I would love to address that topic.

What we are dealing with is a very complex set of issues and a very complex set of relationships. In other speeches and in journal articles, I have dealt with the parliamentary side of the equation. I think we have made gigantic steps in the last few years, to the credit of all parties in this House, on the parliamentary side of the equation. We in Ontario have an excellent Provincial Auditor, who has made some advances that other auditors envy. That is with the co-operation of the government and with the co-operation of the opposition.

We have, I think, with all due modesty, a public accounts committee in this province that is recognized by other provinces to be the best in the country. There is still a lot we need to do in improving the estimates system, but we have made a major advance in the route that we as a Parliament have taken in this regard. I think we will make other advances as we start to work with the new system that was implemented only a year ago, and in which my colleague the member for Oshawa played such an important role in developing proposals, as did the standing committee on public accounts.

We are, I believe, moving slowly towards a more congressional system of government, as are other parliaments, including that of the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain. This is inevitable in my opinion and I think it is positive, provided that certain safeguards are taken to eliminate some of the excesses and worst aspects of the American system. Of course, I refer to the patronage system, the power of unseen vested interests and so forth, which have had what I consider to be an undemocratic and unreasonable influence on the congressional system of government.

I think there is a willingness of members of all parties to try to evolve a system which is more flexible, which is more accountable and in which members of the Legislature can, through the committee system, work more closely with the bureaucracy and encourage the kind of creativity that the bureaucracy is capable of stimulating and that we as parliamentarians are capable of stimulating.

I do not see the same kinds of initiatives, and I may be underestimating it, from the various chairmen of Management Board we have seen. I do see it from people just close to the throne in that ministry. If we look at our counterparts in Australia and if we see some of the leadership that is coming out of Great Britain at the moment, and indeed some of the leadership that the Treasury Board has exercised in Ottawa, we see that there are examples we can look at and that Management Board can look at.

I do not believe this resolution has enough ammunition in it to wake up Management Board, but if the member for Oakville South wants to take a shot at ~t, I will certainly help him to pull the trigger.

Mr McCague: The member for Oakville South has proposed a motion that he and I had an opportunity to chat a little bit about prior to the debate today. It is one of those motions that are very difficult to oppose, because it would be misunderstood. I am sure the honourable member had great difficulty in writing it so that it would not be misunderstood, yet I think he may have raised a few issues in here that he may not have wished to.

He ends up by saying that this has all been done “so as to meet the demonstrated needs of its citizenry in a creative, flexible and responsive manner.” What this says is that there is something wrong. Sure, things can be improved but, without some concrete suggestions as to what should be done, just to seek unanimous approval for a motion like this on the basis that something is wrong, I think does show a little bit the misunderstanding of the member for Oakville South.

I came to this august body 15 years ago and I would admit that I would have written a motion probably exactly the way the member for Oakville South has written it in the first two years here. It shows, I think, a misunderstanding of what actually happens. The member refers to formulation of policy being part of the civil service. I do not believe that if a minister of the crown is doing his or her job properly, the civil service should be doing the policy side of it.

As I understand the system, the policy will be suggested by the civil service but endorsed by the cabinet. It is the minister’s job to carry that through, and it is the civil service’s job to implement that policy. ff1 have incorrectly interpreted what the member was saying earlier, I can easily withdraw, but I think he did refer to the civil service as setting policy, which is not part of its function.

These kinds of motions are always dangerous from the point of view of what kind of message they send to a very, very dedicated civil service. I think the member may not have checked with the Civil Service Commission, the Human Resources Secretariat, to see what it is they are doing and have been doing on an ongoing basis, in order to keep up with what it is the citizenry would call creative, flexible and responsive.

I know that a lot of my constituents in the riding of Simcoe West are not happy with the civil service, because they see the civil service as the person who answers the phone on the one or two calls they might make per year to the Ontario government and sometimes the message or the courtesy, whatever it is, extended to my constituents is not what I know all of us would expect it should be. But that does not mean we do not have a very dedicated, thoughtful, progressive civil service in this province.

If the member had said it would be a good idea if we could see if we could do the job with 10 per cent less, I would have been a full participant in the endorsement of this but, as I have explained, the member writes it in such a way that it is almost impossible to vote against it. I do not feel there are the number of things broken that the honourable member does; therefore, why should we attempt to fix it?

The member may one day be in the inner circle of the Premier’s Ontario and he may then come to an appreciation of just how the system works. Had that happened earlier, I suggest that the member would not be writing this kind of motion.

I believe there is unanimous consent for my colleague the member for Simcoe East to follow with the time left on the clock.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the resolution put forward today by the member for Oakville South, because I have growing concerns about the increasing difficulties the people of Ontario are experiencing in their dealings with government agencies, ministries, boards and commissions.

I want to make it clear that my remarks will be in support of this resolution, which reads that “since the problems facing society and government are becoming increasingly more complex; and that the most valuable resource that the Ontario government or any other government has are the people working within it; and that the principles behind the organization and structure of the Ontario government have not been examined for some time, the Ontario government should review its structure and its operating and human resource practices with a view to simplifying and restructuring its operations so as to meet the demonstrated needs of its citizenry in a creative, flexible and responsive manner.

The reasons for my support of this resolution are so simple that even this government can understand them. We all remember the Premier saying when he came to power that there would be no walls or barriers with this government. What the Premier and his ministers have done is to replace the walls and barriers with piles of red tape that are used to confuse, frustrate and confound the people of this province when they attempt to obtain services, assistance or access to programs they need and deserve.

In other words, this government continues to break its promises. This government has become a band of interior decorators who prefer to paper their walls with barriers, with red tape. No wonder the member has brought this resolution forward. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and it has been caused by the government.

The colour of this tape I am talking about is red, much the same as the members’ ties are. The members are proud to wear them. I want to tell members that the public service has grown by 11.7 per cent since 1985. That represents an increase from 81,429 public servants in 1985 to 91,024 in 1990. No wonder the member wants to bring in this resolution today.

I believe the successive hiring is leaving the people of Ontario with the distinct impression that this government is doing its best to throw up roadblocks and to prevent people from gaining access to health care services, programs for seniors, assistance for battered women and the disabled, legitimate Workers’ Compensation Board claims and proper educational instruction and facilities for the people and the children of Ontario.

This disgraceful situation we are in today is not really because of the rules and regulations. We are in this situation today because this five-year-old government has put us there. This government’s record clearly shows that it gets a great deal of pleasure out of taxing people to death. We all know this is the same government that has bludgeoned the people of Ontario with 33 new or increased taxes since gaining power in 1985. We also know this government is getting added pleasure from strangling the people of this province in red tape.

The time has come for this government to face up to its failures and end the unsatisfactory abuse of the people of Simcoe East and others from all over the ridings in Ontario. It should end now. With this resolution, I hope it would. It should never have been allowed to happen, but it is not because of the rules; it is because of government.

We will not forget how the bank accounts of people in this province have been pillaged by the current Treasurer over the past five years. Those in desperate need of government service and assistance will not forget how tight the government drew the red tape I spoke of earlier around the necks of the people of this province.

I want to conclude my remarks shortly by saying that I support this resolution wholeheartedly. I think we all agree that the past five years have clearly demonstrated the need for a complete review of government structure and the operating and human resources practices. I think the past five years have shown us that operations must be simplified and restructured so as to meet the needs of the people of this province. I urge everyone here today to join with us in supporting this resolution.

The resolution really looks at who makes the decisions. The decisions are made in cabinet. Recommendations will come from the civil servants. The members will remember that not long ago there was a commitment of $850 million over eight years for hospital construction. That was a commitment. What happened to that commitment? How are they going to change the rules to make that commitment be fulfilled?

Remember OFFIRR, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which was cut off? Was that recommended by a civil servant or was that recommended by cabinet? Then we see in this latest budget $48 million for interest relief for farmers brought back in. Why was the farm tax replaced? To change and to save the government millions of dollars? Who reviewed that and who brought that in? Is that the public service or is that the minister? I believe it would be the ministry.

The budget brought in dealt with homes for the aged and nursing homes to be working together and to be funded the same way, but that does not start until 1992. When the Treasurer gets up and reads his budget, is he saying that the rules should be changed so that takes effect immediately? How can he plan down the road almost two years from now to bring this policy forward?

Yesterday we had an announcement from the minister about a six-year plan with regard to the homemakers program. Why is it a six-year program when the government cannot fulfil its commitments now on a yearly basis? Does the Treasurer expect to change the rules or regulations and talk to the civil service on how it is going to change it? It is the government, the cabinet and the Treasurer’s colleagues, that makes that decision.

The Treasurer indicates there are no new taxes, only on tobacco. How can the Treasurer increase his budget by over $3 billion without any new taxes? He forgets to tell the people of all the new taxes that came into effect on 1 January. He seems to think that people are going to forget about that. They are not going to.

The Treasurer can get up and announce a balanced budget.

Who announces the policy? It is the cabinet which announces the policy. The members should remember, when they look at the statistics in the administration in all of the ministry offices -- and that is where all the new employees mostly have gone to: hired in ministers’ offices to shuffle paper -- it is not the programs or the projects that are getting funding, it is staff in administrative offices. I say that is not fair, because it is those people out there who need the service and should be getting it who are not. So if the Treasurer wants to change the way government operates, he has a big job ahead of him.

Do members remember when we dealt with Bill 119 in this Legislature and in committee? People travelled from all across the province to have input into that bill. That was a bill whereby it was lottery funds for sports fitness and recreation. That is really what lottery funds were for, but the Treasurer wanted it to go into general revenue, and he got his way with the huge majority of the government. Those people travelled for thousands of miles to have input into that committee, the committee hearings. What did it do? The government still passed the Bill.

So if the government is talking about changing the rules and changing regulations, I think the best thing for the people of this province to do is to change the government and get rid of the ones who are making the decisions today. If the government wants to change the rules, I think it is all right to look at them.

I am all in favour of this resolution today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to vote on it, but I am sure if the member who has brought this resolution is serious, then he should be talking to his cabinet colleagues.

Mr Tatham: I am very pleased to rise and speak in support of the resolution of the member for Oakville South.

A former speaker talked about 1992. Well, European companies are girding themselves for 1992. The shape of business in Europe is starting to change in anticipation of the European Community’s further integration in 1992. Companies all over Europe are revamping their business plans, moving production facilities and streamlining operations. The end result, business leaders hope, will be a revived corporate sector better able to compete against Asian and US companies.

The developments are occurring relatively quickly. In 1988 a survey of 700 European companies by the accounting firm KPMG Peat Marwick found that 63 per cent of executives were considering changing their business strategy because of 1992. Last year, these considerations were turning into hard plans. “A very large proportion are reviewing and coming up with ideas and proposals,” said Ian Watt, a general partner at Peat Mar-wick.

Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, said 1992 is like putting the plank to the back of the donkey. Peter Wallenberg, the vice-chairman of a Stockholm bank, observes that European corporations are preoccupied with becoming more competitive. There is a need for Europe to strengthen its enterprises, he said.

Sir Robert believes that 1992 may hasten the consolidation of the steel industry in Europe. He said: “A substantial portion of the tonnage is not competitive in price or quality -- labour is 30 per cent of the cost of a tonne of raw steel in continental Europe. By way of contrast, it is 12 per cent for Korean steel, 16 per cent for Japanese steel and 20 per cent for British steel.”

Sir Robert Scholey hinted at an acquisition on the continent for British Steel. Alfred Herrhausen, the chairman of Deutsche Bank, said he was looking at acquisitions in France and Britain. This consolidation might happen even sooner if Barnevik’s vision of Europe 1992 is accurate. He predicts that over the short term only one third of European companies will be winners. Less than half the companies are competitive with Japanese and US manufacturers, he said. There will be fewer manufacturers and fewer people making the same number of units.

The European companies have a mission.

Author Joel Kotkin, talking about Japan, said that when civilizations are on the ascendant it is because they have a belief and an idea. The miracle that Japan had in the past 30 years is a miracle of will. People felt they had a mission and they were going to fulfil it. They worked hard.

Konsuke Matsushita, who died last April in Osaka at the age of 94, was a remarkable man. He built a three-person operation into a multinational corporation employing over 200,000 people worldwide. He had a belief that everything and everyone has value. The secret is to discover what that value is, then use it to its full potential. He was visionary, combined with a hardheaded, realistic and eminently rational approach to business and to life. He was committed not only to succeeding but also to recognizing the facts of the situation he found himself in, no matter how unpalatable they might be.

Honest with himself and with others, there could be no other way if he wanted to run a business in a rational or constructive fashion.

I believe there is a common thread running through the beliefs expressed by different authorities.

Writer Rushworth Kidder, in talking about economic competitiveness, says competitiveness implies winning, but interdependence implies co-operation, a sharing of resources.

Terry Van Tell, a communications and management consultant, says that today’s corporate setting increasingly calls for a more collegial team approach, the type of participatory management style found in Japan where workers frequently have input in the most important company decisions.

Author Joel Kotkin says we have to develop a much more long-term ethical sense based on Confucian concepts about obligations between employer and employee, and obligation of company to country.

Konsuke Matsushita said the intellectual capacity of a single genius can never be larger than the sum of resources brought together by all the members of the group or community to which he belongs. Man’s true greatness lies in the ability to pool the ideas, to pool the talents, the idea that everyone on the staff should think and act as a manager.

If we are going to deliver services to our customers, the taxpayers, we have to develop a business strategy of superior service based on a team approach of participatory management. I certainly support the resolution.

Mr Mackenzie: I only want to take three or four minutes. I do want to indicate that I too will support the resolution that is before us, but I have been provoked -- I guess provoked is not the right word -- encouraged to say a few words by the comments of one of my colleagues who is no longer in the chamber with us, the member for Simcoe West. I think he raised the point that had been bothering me when I read the resolution earlier today and took a look at it.

I take it he was going to support it, but the thing that bothered him a bit was that he did not clearly understand it and there did not seem to be any particular direction in the resolution. Maybe that is why I think the very good presentation from the member for Oxford had any connection whatsoever with the resolution that is before us; at least I could not find a single thing he said that had any connection with this particular resolution.

I have no real objection to that in a debate of this kind, but let me point out that there were some suggestions made by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. He said that maybe they should take another look at the study of management and accountability done in 1985 by Price Waterhouse, and I think that is a valid suggestion. He also gave some ideas of what we should be looking for. I think there was a little more meat in it.

Let me tell members why I have one or two reservations about this resolution. The best way I can do it is, I guess, by reading it in sections and then commenting on those sections. The resolution says first, “That in the opinion of this House, since the problems facing society and government are becoming increasingly more complex; and that the most valuable resource that the Ontario government or any other government has are the people working within it; and that the principles behind the organization and structure of the Ontario government have not been examined for some time”

Apart from the Price Waterhouse study, I think that is probably true, although it seems to me there is always an ongoing look at the procedures and rules, which has something to do with this in the House, how we conduct business. But nobody could object to that first major half of the resolution. I certainly do not. I think it probably accurately describes the situation, the increasing complexity of business in Ontario today, and I think most of us would agree that one of our most valuable resources is the people and the expertise that we have working for us.

Then let me tell members what bothered me in reading this resolution and why I wish it had been a little more descriptive or a little more informative of what the member actually wanted to do. It goes on to say that “the Ontario government should review its structure and its operating and human resource practices with a view to simplifying and restructuring its operations so as to meet the demonstrated needs of its citizenry.”

That is the

section that put a bit of a red flag up to me right off the bat, because I can tell the member that anybody who is interested in government, any civil servant and any representative of civil servants in the province of Ontario who are interested in the way we do business and the way we may change the way we do business, is going to take a look at that and say right off the bat, “Hey, they’re just looking to get rid of additional people.”

I am sorry I have not got any more time. I do support it, but it could have been worded in a more effective way, I would say to the member.

Miss Roberts: I rise today to support the resolution presented by the honourable member for Oakville South. I too will read the resolution, or part of it, because I think many of the speakers before me have maybe not looked at it carefully enough to see what the honourable member for Oakville South was trying to accomplish.

I think the important

part in the first part that was just completed and read by the honourable member for Hamilton East was that the most valuable resource the Ontario government or any other government has is the people working within it. That is what the honourable member for Oakville South is talking about. He is also talking about the principles behind the organization to help the human resource that is there.

The member has put forward a resolution that is looking at simplifying and restructuring the operation of the Ontario government. The importance of an effective program implementation and administration is known to everyone, and the people in this province demand effective implementation of the Ontario government programs, of this government’s programs or of any government programs. This is of vital importance to all people.

Devising and creating programs and policy is, of course, a very essential process, but it is only the first step. It is another thing altogether to deliver the goods, and this is what the honourable member for Oakville South is talking about: to ensure that the program is efficient and that it is put forward in an effective manner to all those who need it. We must strive for a means of delivering our programs so that they are responsive to people’s needs and are flexible and able to deal with change.

We also must strive to provide the best possible service to the public, and this is what the civil service in Ontario has been doing. The purpose of this resolution is to help that civil service to continue to do that. This is to give the taxpayers the best possible value for their money.

For these reasons, I support my colleague’s resolution in favour of improved program delivery. We may argue whether or not the program is the one that would be put forward by another government, but we cannot argue that it is important that the programs are delivered in a simple and effective manner. The civil service, like any other business, as the honourable member for Oxford spoke about, needs to have morale. It needs to be looked at and needs to be considered.

My colleague also referred to the problem of frustration among civil servants in administrative functions, due to the low priority that is accorded to these functions. Again, we are talking about administrative functions; not policy functions, but administrative functions. I also recognize this problem and support the efforts to alleviate it.

To be most productive, workers need to get a sense of fulfilment from their jobs. They need to be motivated. They need to feel part of a team. Feedback is the important element of this. We need mechanisms so that people are rewarded on the basis of their performance. I believe that we are moving in that direction, and I believe that this resolution will help the government to focus on that movement.

I was interested by the specific suggestions that were put forward by my colleague in trying to achieve these goals. He outlined a couple, and they are deserving of some consideration. I was also interested in the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, outlining some things that could be done and for consideration with respect to the administration and the effective delivery of programs.

A suggestion that is intended to increase the focus on implementation, to increase autonomy in program delivery through the establishment of self-contained administrative structure, is an intriguing idea indeed. Any program may need and should have an implementation process in the program itself, and the civil service, the people who are providing the front-line service, should be part of that implementation pro-gram.

One might be wary of separating the two functions of policy development and implementation, and this is something that has to be considered. I believe the member’s resolution is indicating that we in the government should look at and examine various structures and make sure that the functions, although separate, are dealt with in a fair manner.

Although distinct, the functions of policy development and implementation are complementary. Often people who design the program are the most knowledgeable about it and sometimes are in the best position to implement it. But each situation might be different. Implementation might be necessary and might be best known about by the person on the front line, the fellow -- I should not say “fellow,” which is very bad of me, very sexist, and I apologize for that -- the person who answers the phone, the person who is at the counter may know and look at the programs and say, “This is the appropriate way, the proper way to implement a program.

As indicated before, the honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale looked at a review that had been done, and his development of the standing committee on public accounts as well shows his understanding of the need to integrate and make sure that implementation is part of the policy process. But in each situation, the approach may be different and may call for a unique approach.

Another consideration of which I am sure my colleague is aware is accountability. That again was spoken about by other members who spoke before me. There is always a tradeoff between accountability and autonomy. Increased autonomy might increase effectiveness, but also decreased accountability of a program might have some problems, making sure that the public representatives have a decreased accountability.

We must be sure that all members of the Legislature have their accountability; but members of the civil service, to make their jobs more fulfilling, more part of the system, should also have effective and responsive accountability. That was spoken about by the honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale as well.

In

summary, I applaud and support my colleague’s initiatives. Policy implementation is important in its own right but should not take a back seat to the often more high-profile area that is known as policy formulation.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South may wish to use up the last few minutes.

Mr Carrothers: I certainly do. I appreciate the comments here and I think the various perspectives we have heard on this question indicate its very complexity, which was the reason that the resolution is a general one. I will agree with the comments of my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

The reason I made it general was that what I am calling for is a review. I pointed out that I agree with the direction the UK government is moving in, that is, separating policy from implementation because the two perhaps cannot coexist. They are uneasy bedfellows within the same organization.

But at the same time I recognize that our practices in Canada have often been somewhat more modern than those in the United Kingdom and we may not have to make such a radical change as they are making there. I do not want to presume that we need to go that far, and I am simply asking for a study and suggesting a direction.

This resolution is certainly not a criticism of those who work within our civil service because, certainly, in the two and a half years that I have been here, I have been very astonished or very impressed with the level of dedication of those who work within our civil service.

But, as my colleague the member for Elgin has just pointed out, it is about giving them the opportunity to do the jobs they want to do, do the jobs they have come to work to do, to serve the public in the most appropriate fashion. I am suggesting with this resolution that perhaps the organization which we have here needs to have some changes made, because it is not as relevant as it could be to modern-day needs.

Perhaps we can look at different ways of implementing policies. Perhaps policies can be implemented across ministerial boundaries and various other ways could be used. We need to be imaginative in this respect.

What I am calling for in this resolution is that we review and look with a view to making things more flexible, making them more responsive and making them more effective for the public and for those who work within our civil service.

I very much appreciate the support I have had here and would ask that all members support this resolution when it comes time to vote on it.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 131.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: That matter will then be placed before committee of the whole House.

Mr Sterling: I would like it to go to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Speaker: According to our standing order, it states very clearly that when a private member’s bill is approved it goes to committee of the whole House unless the majority of the House wishes it to go to some other standing committee. So you would like me to put the question?

All those in favour of this bill going to the standing committee will please rise and remain standing until we count the numbers.

All those opposed to its going to the standing committee will please rise and remain standing until the number is counted.

Ayes 8; nays 24.

The Speaker: Therefore, this bill will stand on the order paper before the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the members please show some respect.

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

The Speaker: Mr Carrothers has moved resolution 49.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1201.

26 APRIL 1990787

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: Yesterday in the assembly the Treasurer attacked my activities and questions on behalf of the hungry, homeless and poor in this province as a mindless crusade. Evidently, feeling passionately about that subject unsettles the Treasurer, as it does the Premier, who occasionally refers sarcastically to my party’s “theological” views on the subject of poverty.

The vast majority of food bank operators and their tens of thousands of supporters who are religiously motivated will be surprised to learn that the Liberal leadership of this government appears to consider them “mindless crusaders” for their deeply held religious convictions about the poor and their demonstrations of intolerance for the shocking contrasts of poverty and wealth about us.

Much in politics may be a careful balancing of competing interests, but for me and my party, both religious and humanistic convictions tell us that the condition of the poor is non-negotiable. There is no competition between adequate incomes for the disabled and capital gains write-offs for the rich. There is no competition between taxes on minimum wage earners and a tax on net wealth. There is no tradeoff between infants on watered formula and the paying down of the provincial debt.

The Treasurer in his budget has put the rich and the poor on the scales together. God help him. His own religious tradition reserves a terrible fate for those who forget who the poor really are.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr McCague: Maybe I can help the Treasurer. The Treasurer told us that the 1990 budget provides a solid basis for our continued shared prosperity in Ontario. It is refreshing to hear that from a government whose policies have consistently undermined the competitiveness and productivity of our economy, from an administration that appears determined to change Ontario from an economic powerhouse.

I know that the Treasurer does not share this view. When we express our concern that his policies have destroyed the tax advantages we enjoyed over major competitors, he shrugs it off. When auto parts makers conclude that Ontario is the worst jurisdiction in North America in which to invest, the government tells us that geography will save the day. When we and others suggest that his spending policies fuel inflation and put pressure on interest rates, the Treasurer tells us it just ain’t so.

Now, no doubt, the Treasurer will tell us that the findings by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, showing small firms in Ontario to be the most heavily taxed in the country, are no cause for concern.

Strange how everybody is out of step with our Bob. Strange how everybody is concerned except our Bob. Strange how no one in this province has benefited more from the now-withering economic boom than the Liberal government itself. Strange how all these chickens have a way of coming home to roost.

RAMADAN

Mr Velshi: I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of a very significant religious event for Muslims across Canada and around the world.

Today Muslims all over the world will celebrate Eid, the end of the fast of Ramadan. During Ramadan, Muslims fast from dawn until sunset. It is by abstaining from food, drink, smoking and all indulgences that Muslims are able to empathize with those who are pained by the deprivation of the basic necessities of life.

Today we rejoice and celebrate with all Muslims who are celebrating Eid, the festival of breaking the fast. This festival is an occasion for rejoicing in the revelation of the Koran and the appointment of Muhammad, peace be upon him, as the prophet of Allah. It is also a time of thanksgiving for having been given the strength, courage and resilience to complete the fast, thus fulfilling the duty enjoined upon them by Allah.

The festival begins with a festive prayer at the mosque. It is also an occasion for socializing with other Muslims and to foster a sense of brotherhood and unity among the community. After the prayer, family and friends gather together to exchange gifts and enjoy a meal.

In Ontario we are fortunate to enjoy a diverse multicultural society where so many religions thrive. For the Muslim community, today will be an occasion much the same as Easter.

I want to again take this opportunity to ask all members to join with me in wishing the Muslim community a happy Eid.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Morin-Strom: This Liberal government has taken a workers’ compensation system in Ontario that was a mess and turned it into an utter disaster. The WCB continues to strand the injured workers of Sault Ste Marie and northern Ontario. The office of the worker adviser in Sault Ste Marie is today beginning to act on cases it received in October 1988. What is an injured worker to do when it can take 18 months to even begin work on his appeal?

Under the recent so-called reforms of the workers’ compensation system contained in Bill 162, the waiting-list situation is getting worse, not better, across northern Ontario. One of these reforms requires the injured worker to act on a case within stringent time limits or have the case dismissed. To help the worker facing a time limit, the office of the worker adviser must push back those already on the waiting list even farther. The offices of the worker adviser in Sault Ste Marie and elsewhere have been forced to judge one case against another.

When will this government recognize that all injured workers count, that each deserves speedy and efficient assistance? When will workers be assured that the help they need and deserve will be available? When will this government provide the resources that are so desperately needed to worker adviser offices in Sault Ste Marie and right across the province?

BUDGET

Mrs Cunningham: The government should peddle its 1990 budget as the “once and future” budget: Once we get the election out of the way, we can get on with the job of dealing realistically with the future of the province. That is a job this budget, full of vague commitments to do this by 1992, to do something else over four years and another thing over a decade, largely ignores.

I suspect this budget has much in common with the 1987 Liberal election campaign. It is designed more to conceal than reveal the government’s true agenda. I am sure members recall the 1987 Liberal agenda, the no-deal, anti-free trade position, the promise of lower auto insurance rates, the commitment to fund 4,400 new hospital beds.

Today the Liberals run ads touting the benefits of the free trade agreement. Their policy on auto insurance resembles a pile-up on Highway 401. The commitment to those hospital beds has simply evaporated. No doubt a similar fate awaits much of what we read in this latest Grit wish list.

This government has consistently assigned more importance to public relations than to public policy. It has shown itself more proficient at dreaming up slogans than implementing solutions to problems. The 1990 budget is part and parcel of that approach to leadership, an approach that puts the political interests of the governing party before the economic interests of the province.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Owen: The city of Barrie has seen considerable building activity in the past few years. Barrie is an attractive location for many people to work and raise a family in. There has been a steady growth in the city’s population, which is now approximately 54,000.

One area in which Barrie excels among municipalities is non-profit housing development. Since 1987 more than 1,000 units have been built, are being built or are in the planning stages in just about every

section of the city. The majority of these units were built and are managed by the Barrie Non-Profit Housing Corp. Since 1987 the corporation has seen a 475 per cent growth in assets. Many of these units were developed through funds guaranteed by the province’s Homes Now program.

More non-profit projects have been built or are under development by other organizations. These include the Independent Order of Oddfellows and the 441 Huronia Wing of the Royal Canadian Air Force Association. The 441 wing was the first RCAFA wing in Canada to take on the responsibility of sponsoring a non-profit housing project and they are planning to do it again in Vespra township, adjacent to Barrie.

All the people who have been involved in the process of bringing non-profit housing to Barrie should be commended for their hard work and social responsibility. I believe they can be counted upon to manage effectively into the future.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Hampton: During the past week the Minister of Health has tried to duck and dodge questions about health travel funding.

Over the past eight months, southern Ontario patients who have been referred to Thunder Bay for specialist treatment have received full funding of their air fare, hotel accommodation and meals from the Ministry of Health. In addition, the Ministry of Health has also paid 100 per cent of the air fare and other costs for a family member or friend to escort the patient to Thunder Bay.

Air fare from Toronto to Thunder Bay is $514; for two people that is $1,028. Hotel accommodation runs to $100 at least, and more likely $225 for the week; meals $100; taxi $100. You are looking at a total of $1,450 a week for someone referred to Thunder Bay.

I emphasize again that the Ministry of Health is paying the bill, not the Canadian Cancer Society. The Minister of Health has tried very hard this past week to leave the impression that it has been particular hospitals or the cancer society that would pay the $1,450.

Let me say to the Minister of Health, drop the façade. The impression she has tried to create is totally unsupported. I have checked out her story with the Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society and the Thunder Bay office of the cancer society. Both offices expressly deny cancer society funds paid for the air fare or anything else. Both offices categorically state that the funding for this health care travel came from the Ministry of Health, yet someone from the north gets $250.

BUDGET

Mr J. M. Johnson: The 1990 budget is more remarkable for what it is not than for what it is. For instance, no matter how hard the government pretends, the budget is not a break for Ontario taxpayers, who will continue to shoulder one of the highest tax burdens in this country. This budget does nothing to lighten the tax load on the vast majority of taxpayers who have seen six Liberal budgets increase the per capita tax burden by 112 per cent, more than double the personal income growth rate.

It is not a break for taxpayers, who will continue to pay the more than 30 tax increases imposed by this government since it took power in 1985. It is not a break for taxpayers, who will still have to pay their share of the $847 million in new taxes the government will collect this year as increases and levies imposed by last year’s budget come into effect.

This budget is not taxpayer-friendly. It is, rather, an insult to the intelligence of the taxpayers. This government is using this budget in an effort to dupe the taxpayers into believing that the Liberal leopard has changed its spots, that they can safely ride on the tax tiger’s back for another few years.

We do not believe the taxpayers of Ontario are as gullible as the Treasurer and the Premier have assumed. Given this government’s record, we are confident that the taxpayer will not be fooled again.

EDMUND C. BOVEY

Mr Ferraro: As most members of the House will know by now, Canada lost a great Canadian Tuesday night. I am speaking, of course, of the death of Edmund C. Bovey, chancellor of the University of Guelph, who died at his home in Toronto, more specifically in the riding of York Mills.

Mr Bovey, 74, was a member of the board of governors at the University of Guelph since 1979 until he was replaced last year by Ian Murray. In October of last year he was appointed chancellor of the University of Guelph.

Bovey had a distinguished career to say the least. He was chairman of Telefilm Canada and the Toronto Economic Development Corp and a director of Argus Corp. Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc and Griffith Laboratories.

As well, most people will recall that he was chairman of the Bovey commission, the 1984 Ontario government Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario. He also chaired the 1985 national Task Force on Funding of the Arts in Canada and was a member of the Order of Canada.

He had extensive involvement in the arts, including holding the positions of vice-chairman of the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, vice-president of Roy

Thomson Hall, head of the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Art Gallery of Ontario Foundation, the Council for Business and the Arts in Canada, the National Ballet of Canada and the world and Canadian federations of friends of museums.

At the time of his death, Mr Bovey had just returned from a holiday in the Caribbean with his grandchildren. He is survived by his wife, Margaret (Peg) Snowdon, two children, Myra and Charles, and two grandchildren. I had the pleasure of knowing him and indeed he will be sadly missed.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I would like at this time to seek unanimous consent for statements from all three parties with regard to Injured Workers Day.

Agreed to.

INJURED WORKERS DAY

Hon Mr Phillips: As honourable members know, Saturday 28 April is the national day of mourning for injured workers. Across this province, workers will be joining together in memorial services to honour colleagues who lost their lives or who were injured in the performance of their jobs.

It is a day of mourning. For many families, however, it is a time when it will be a very painful remembrance of the loss of lives of loved ones. For those of us who have shared such anguish, the national day of mourning will be a time to reflect on the terrible human cost of all workplace accidents and all workplace illnesses.

As well, it will be a most appropriate time for government, for labour and for management to reaffirm our shared commitment to a preventive occupational health and safety system in this province. As legislators, we must do all we can to provide Ontario with an occupational health and safety system that protects the lives and the wellbeing of workers. We know that a genuine partnership between the workplace parties is the true key to success. Together they must develop and deliver the safety education and training that people need to work safely in their workplaces.

I would like to commend the labour movement for its initiative in establishing an annual day that honours those who have died or who have been injured on their jobs. In keeping with this occasion, I have requested that the flags of this Legislature as well as the flags at our provincial government offices throughout Ontario be flown at half mast throughout the day tomorrow.

At this time I would also ask all of us here today to recognize those who died or who have been seriously injured at work. Therefore, I am requesting the unanimous consent of this House for a moment of silence following statements from my colleagues opposite.

Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise to represent my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus on this occasion. Deaths and injuries, along with the slow poisoning of workers by toxic substances, take place far too often in far too many of our places of employment. It is a totally unacceptable fact of a worker’s life in Ontario today.

Tragically, once again this year, just up to 31 March, another 62 workers have been killed and 134,968 workers injured. In addition, in the last few days alone we have witnessed the deaths of miners, construction workers and municipal employees.

The day of mourning organized by the labour movement in recognition of the sacrifice made by workers would be a betrayal of dead and injured workers if it did not bring a renewal of commitment by all of us to guarantee workers and their families and friends a healthier and safer future. We must reaffirm our responsibility to end the slaughter in the workplace.

During the recent public hearings on Bill 208, the proposed changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, one of the most moving moments occurred in London, Ontario. The labour council and local unions filed into the hearing room, each member carrying a daisy which they placed on the desk from which the various petitioners were to make their presentations on the bill. Some 285 daisies were deposited, one for each worker killed in the previous year. All 285 deaths were employees. There were no owners, no managers, no presidents or vice-presidents, no supervisors or public relations hacks, just rank-and-file workers.

Is it not strange that the Liberal government recognized the opposition to Bill 208 by business interests, who do not suffer the deaths and injuries, but gave far less credence to the workers who suffered the injuries and deaths?

One year since the last day of mourning, we are still without a bill that recognizes an equal authority for workers with respect to the safety of their workplaces, the government’s lack of enforcement of safety in the workplace and its inability to understand that those doing the work really are best equipped to deal with their own safety, and that is disturbing. Despite the deaths, Bill 208 is still inadequate and not yet in place.

The Liberal government insists on denying rights to its own public sector workers that are available to the private sector under Bill 208. Inquests into deaths in the workplace that might provide the remedies to save others often take months and in some cases years before they are held. Sadly, in some industrial deaths there are no inquests at all.

The income protection and health and rehabilitation process provided for under the Workers’ Compensation Act, which is the immediate lifeline for injured workers, is rapidly approaching a crisis status. Delays of months and years before recognizing and paying claims is becoming the norm at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I say to this government and to all members of the Ontario Legislature, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Up until now, this day of mourning has not resulted in much renewal of a commitment to workers’ safety. We are not adequately remembering injured workers and those who have paid the supreme price with their lives.

Mr Runciman: As someone who a number of years ago suffered a serious industrial accident when I was sprayed with liquid urea and continues to deal with the after-effects of that accident, I am very pleased, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, to acknowledge and commemorate the injured workers in this province on this very special day.

In Ontario last year, a worker died every working day because of an industrial accident, and over the past decade the number of disabling injuries has risen over 60 per cent. That is not a record to be proud of.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party, and, I assume, in this Legislature, are very much in sympathy with the justifiable concerns of injured workers. The Workers’ Compensation Board is an instrument which was set up to deal specifically and compassionately with the problems of injuries in the workplace.

It is an instrument of the government and should be addressing the workers’ concerns. Safety in the workplace is of prime importance and is of mutual concern to both employers and employees. The severity and frequency of workplace accidents must be reduced.

When accidents do occur, emphasis should be on rehabilitation and getting people back to work as soon as possible. Workers must be given the assurance that employers are committed to having them back on the job as soon as they are available. That is essential both for the morale of the worker and for the benefit of the employer.

It seems that everyone wants to point the finger at someone else. Victims are sometimes blamed for carelessness and employers for not caring enough about safety. Whatever the reason, the workers of Ontario are paying the price, and it is a very high price indeed. Those who have been injured on the job are worried about the future and what it holds in store for them.

Again, I am proud, on behalf of my party, to indicate our support for this special day in the province.

The Speaker: There was a request earlier that all members would rise and have a few moments of silence. Please join me.

The House observed one minute’s silence.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Because of the request, I will also make certain that the flag is flown at half-mast, as instructed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POWER BLACKOUT IN TORONTO

Hon Mrs Caplan: It is said that the best in people often comes out during the worst of times. I cannot think of a better example than what happened last night during the blackout in Toronto. I am sure that we were all impressed by reports of the caring, dedication, creativity and quick thinking exhibited by those faced with life and death situations under such adverse conditions.

On behalf of the government, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of everyone who contributed to the quick and successful response to the emergency. I particularly commend the efforts of those professionals who responded during the blackout. The police, fire and other emergency response units deserve our highest commendation for their professional and co-operative actions last evening which ensured the highest possible level of public safety. Of equal importance were the responsible actions of our citizens which reinforced the level of security within our communities.

Emergency power systems were in place in case of such an occurrence as last night. When further problems arose, steps were taken immediately to deal with the situation. Ambulances were rerouted away from all emergency departments in downtown Toronto. This was done quickly, efficiently and without incident by ambulance dispatchers, relying on the central resource registry which links all emergency departments in Metropolitan Toronto by computer.

An emergency operations room was set up at the Metro Toronto headquarters for ambulance services to establish links with the affected hospitals to meet whatever needs they had. Cardiac monitors and portable suctions were made available to Mount Sinai and St Michael’s Hospital when they were completely without power. As well, a portable generator was sent to St Michael’s to help with the auxiliary power.

Most members no doubt heard of the heroics demonstrated at Mount Sinai where five critically ill babies were rushed through the tunnel under University Avenue to the Hospital for Sick Children. I am sure as time goes by we will be hearing and marvelling at numerous other inspiring stories of how the doctors, nurses and health professionals on the front lines responded during this crisis. Again, my utmost appreciation and admiration to all in the health care field who prevailed during those desperate hours of need last night.

Mention must also be made of the key role played by Ontario Hydro’s emergency crews. By 11:30 pm, just over two hours after the failure of the transformer, electricity services had been restored to 90 per cent of Hydro customers. By 1:10 in the morning, ful