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

May 18, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

BANKING SERVICES

HOME CARE

BANKING SERVICES

HOME CARE

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

TIRE TAX

SAINTE-MARIE AMONG THE HURONS

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

GREEK-CANADIAN CULTURAL MONTH

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

TAX INCREASES

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

TRANSIT SERVICES

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

NOISE BARRIERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

PORK PRODUCTION

TRANSIT SERVICES

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NATUROPATHY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BRUCE OFFICE SUPPLY LIMITED ACT, 1989

ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 1989

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

BANKING SERVICES

Mr Runciman moved resolution 5:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that there have been 28 bank branch closures across Ontario between 1982 and 1986 which have left many small communities without adequate banking services, the government of Ontario should review all requests for satellite banking services and establish Province of Ontario Savings Offices in those areas where population levels demonstrate a need for them and where financial benefits can be determined.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of that 20 minutes for the windup.

Mr Runciman: This resolution arose as a result of concerns in my own riding of Leeds-Grenville in 1987 following the closure of the Toronto-Dominion Bank branch in a small rural community, North Augusta. Mr Speaker, as a resident of eastern Ontario, you may indeed be familiar with North Augusta, a beautiful little rural community approximately 15 to 20 miles outside of Brockville.

The closure of the Toronto-Dominion Bank branch in that village was a major tragedy -- and I do not think that is too strong a word -- in that area. One of the primary reasons it was construed as a tragedy was that the overwhelming numbers in terms of the population of that area are elderly people who have been encouraged by this government, the federal government and governments in the past to make every effort to stay in their own homes. The loss of that banking service in their village was another disincentive, if you will, to remaining in their own homes and in the community where they had spent their lives.

We can look at programs that have been brought in over the past number of years, the Victorian Order of Nurses service, the Red Cross homemakers service. A whole host of programs have been brought in provincially, federally and municipally to try to assist and encourage our growing, increasingly older population in this province to stay in their own homes as long as they possibly can.

In my view, the opportunity to have banking services in your own community is another element that this government should look favourably upon in terms of filling a vacuum left by the private sector. As most members know, I am certainly a strong supporter of the private sector, and I may be open to some humorous comments from the other parties today in respect of my stand on this issue. But I believe I am being consistent, because I do strongly believe that government certainly has a role to play in areas where the private sector is either unwilling or unable to fulfil that capacity.

In this respect, I want to say that once the Toronto-Dominion pulled out of North Augusta, I made an effort to encourage other chartered banks to fill that void, and failed. I also went to a trust company and spent considerable time with that trust company in an effort to have it move into the village. I will give them credit; they spent some time, did a thorough assessment and felt that it was not in their best interests to establish a branch. Having exhausted the private sector options first, I then turned to the government as a possible source of providing that much-needed service in rural Ontario.

I know in the past the current Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has been very supportive of the Province of Ontario Savings Office and its expansion. I stand to be corrected by members of the government if this is not correct, but I believe his father, Harry, was the Premier of the province -- he had a very brief tenure as Premier -- when POSO was established. That may be the case, and that may be the reason for the current Treasurer’s --

Mr Dietsch: Imagine all the good things he would have done if he had been there longer.

Mr Runciman: I could say the same about Frank Miller.

That may be the source of the current Treasurer’s affection for POSO, I am not sure. Indeed, I have an account in POSO in Toronto.

Currently, POSO has 21 offices in 15 communities across the province. Six of those branches are in the city of Toronto. Looking through the phone book, there are a number in some of the smaller communities in Ontario, Aylmer, Guelph, Walkerton, to name a few, but none in what we would call the small rural communities, with populations of 1,000 to 1,500, which could be serving much greater populations surrounding them.

I think that is an area this government could take a serious look at. It is certainly a growing concern in my own area and, I know, in other parts of eastern Ontario. I cannot speak for other regions of the province, but I suspect the situation is somewhat similar.

Between 1984 and 1986, we had 28 chartered bank branch closures in Ontario, and that was just in a two-year period. That is an indication of the fact that the chartered banks are abandoning rural Ontario, much to the distress of residents in those areas.

Mr Wildman: Just like the government.

Mr Runciman: Well, I do not want to get into making this a partisan discussion today. I think there is an opportunity here for all three parties to recognize that need and to address it in a very nonpartisan fashion. I am hoping that is going to be the thrust of the debate here today.

I want to talk a little bit about how the government can do this as a possibility. I have suggested in my resolution that they “establish Province of Ontario Savings Offices in those areas where population levels demonstrate a need for them and where financial benefits can be determined.” I have tried to qualify it in such a way that it is worded in what I believe is a responsible fashion.

If we take a look at just my area -- obviously that is the one I have a better understanding of -- following the North Augusta closure of the Toronto-Dominion Bank we had another closure, in the small village of Lyndhurst, a couple of months later. If you are looking at my riding, it may not be attractive to go into both of those rural communities and open up a five-day-a-week operation; but I think if the government is committed to providing this kind of service, there are very innovative ways it can be achieved without establishing some sort of onerous cost burden on the taxpayers. I do not think that has to happen at all.

I think these can be done on a nonprofit basis and certainly do not have to be, in any way, shape or form, money losers for the taxpayers of this province. I would not want to see that happen and I am sure the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître) would not want to see that happen.

But, for example, we have had this happening in rural areas for many years, where you will see a post office operating out of the corner of a grocery store or out of a hardware store. The government has now expanded -- and, I might suggest, at my urging -- the agency store concept, which has been established in northern Ontario for some time, where they can sell alcohol products out of a variety of stores. I think if POSO can take a look at that kind of approach, it may make it that much more feasible to go into some of these smaller communities. Again, I will use my riding as an example.

If they went into Lyndhurst and operated out of the corner of a hardware store or a grocery store two days per week, Monday and Tuesday, and the next three days of the week they operated out of North Augusta, they are operating with the same staff and they are just going 20 or 30 miles to operate their branches in those different small rural communities. I think that may make it much more attractive and attainable, in terms of cost-effectiveness, for POSO to go into many of these rural communities that are finding themselves without adequate banking services.

I have spoken to the Canadian Bankers’ Association with respect to providing banking machines in these communities, which seems to most of us to be only common sense, but if you talk to the bankers they are not prepared to do that either. They feel the maintenance of these machines, the fact that they have to be filled with new bills -- there are a whole host of complications and reasons they can come forward with.

The bottom line, in any event, is that they are not prepared to do it. I am not sure that POSO is into banking machines as yet. I do not believe they are, but in any event the answer I have had from the Canadian Bankers’ Association is that it will not work, it is not practical. But again, perhaps it is something POSO could independently take a look at.

Rural Ontario is increasingly losing its voice, its importance, its influence, if you will, in matters in this province. We saw it through redistribution prior to the last provincial election, where we see Ontario becoming increasingly urbanized. Even in this Legislature, the representatives from rural Ontario are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of this body. So the voices and the influence we can bring to bear and members of all parties can bring to bear with respect to the concerns of their constituents are gradually being reduced. I think that is another concern.

To the best of our ability as members of this body, we have to represent all people of Ontario as effectively as we possibly can and try to address the very real needs of the communities out there. I think most of us in this place are committed to doing that as best we can. I believe strongly that POSO has a role to play, a much more activist kind of role than it has played up to this point in time.

I placed this resolution in Orders and Notices back in 1987, following the provincial election. I spoke to the Treasurer, who was very supportive at the time, and also communicated with his successor as Minister of Revenue. He also seems to be basically supportive of the intent and thrust of this motion, but I have not seen that translated up to this point into any concrete proposals or initiatives.

I hope that if this resolution is looked upon favourably today, we can see some action forthcoming in the very near future, because I think this is important. It sends out a very clear message to rural Ontario, as well as a variety of other things that we are attempting to do to try to make life easier for people in rural Ontario and to allow our elderly to remain in their homes in rural Ontario. That we are prepared to provide this additional service, this very important service to people to make it that much more feasible for them to remain in their own homes for a good many more years. I will try to retain the rest of my time to respond to comments made by other members of the House.

Mr Faubert: It is a pleasure today to rise on the resolution by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman), which essentially recommends the expansion of the service provided by the Province of Ontario Savings Office, affectionately known as POSO to members of the Legislature and much of the public, by providing service to communities which do not have adequate access to banking services.

One point I should clarify for the background of members of the Legislature is that technically POSO is not a bank; it is a deposit-taking institution governed solely by provincial legislation and is defined as a “near bank” in financial institution terms. I wish to speak in favour of the resolution and I think we should provide first a brief overview of the role of the Province of Ontario Savings Office over the years.

The savings office was founded in 1921 by the United Farmers of Ontario government, interestingly enough, as pointed out by the member for Leeds-Grenville, by the Treasurer’s father, Harry Nixon, who at that time was Provincial Secretary in the United Farmers of Ontario government. The objectives were to provide loans to farmers and small business as part of an agricultural credit scheme and also, according to the conspectus of 1924, to promote and encourage thrift among the citizens of Ontario.

Although the United Farmers government lasted only two years, the Conservatives who took over as the succeeding government kept the savings office because they recognized the importance to a number of rural communities not served at that time by other financial institutions. In between 1934 and 1936, the Liberal government of the day added a further eight branches to the original 17 for a total of 25. However, during the Second World War four branches were closed and that brought the total in 1943 to the present number of 21, the number correctly put forward by the member for Leeds-Grenville.

The savings office mandate, while originally to promote the development of agriculture, was also to encourage saving among the people of the province. POSO feels that it has achieved its mandate because it offers savings and chequing services combined with high interest rates, and at that time it quickly established its popularity with the public, which was reflected in a continual and rapid growth in deposits.

However, under the succeeding Conservative governments POSO’s development was not encouraged. Indeed, there were many calls for privatization or abolition from the Conservative ranks. During the 1970s several studies were undertaken to either close or sell the savings office. No decision, of course, was made one way or the other, but POSO was held in position and required to operate with the same amount of services it actually offered in the 1920s.

This was in a period of aggressive expansion by the banking service industry, which became a very aggressive marketer of services. As a result, POSO’s rather staid, single-account system became uncompetitive. In 1984, deposits fell for the first time since the Depression. However, with the election of the new Liberal government in 1985, POSO was immediately authorized to offer more competitive services and positive steps were taken by giving it a wider range of banking service instruments.

We all know that in 1986 the Trillium daily interest savings-chequing account was introduced, which offers two tiers of interest above and below $5,000. Interest is calculated daily and credited monthly and it has chequing privileges, of course. The success of the account is pointed out by the fact that deposits have grown from $630 million in 1986 to the point today where 80,000 Ontarians have deposited $1.25 billion of their savings.

In response to requests from the public, in 1988 the savings office offered guaranteed investment certificates, or GICs as they are commonly known, and in little over a year 13,000 Ontarians have invested $200 million of their savings in POSO GICs.

POSO, of course, is part of the government program of assisting first-time home buyers. The Ontario home ownership plan, OHOSP, was introduced and the OHOSP account was offered by POSO on 1 September, and as such was one of the first to be offered under this program. The POSO OHOSP account today offers 10.75 per cent interest and there are more than 2,000 depositors with a total sum on deposit of $2.2 million. POSO also relocated some branches, such as in Brantford and Hamilton, to give them more competitive sites.

Of course, while all this was going on -- part of this was written by the ministry so you have to appreciate that this is part of a commercial for POSO -- it still offers what it calls its “no frills” account. That is still a very popular one in the wake of some of the criticism of banking charges.

POSO also leases safety deposit boxes at low rates, and has travellers’ cheques at no commission, money orders and most international currencies, purchase and sale of securities, and finally, friendly and helpful service.

Mr Dietsch: End of the commercial.

Mr Faubert: End of the commercial. However, the new services offered by the savings office have been well received. Today, deposits exceed $1.4 billion, which is up $600 million from 1985. POSO continues to be a very popular financial institution -- it is popular certainly among members of this Legislature -- as depositors welcome the opportunity of investing in Ontario, and every single dollar is guaranteed by the province of Ontario.

Today in Ontario, there are 4,700 branches of financial institutions serving 8.8 million people. That is one for every 1,900 people, which by any standard is good, but for some years POSO has been aware of the difficulties faced by residents of small and remote communities that do not have ready access to the services of a bank, trust company, credit union or caisse populaire.

Many Ontarians have taken the time to draw our attention to their plight through ever-increasing correspondence. There have been many members of the government party, and as well the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot); I am aware of his interest in this. There are presentations and resolutions, such as that of the member for Leeds-Grenville, on behalf of their constituents, for a POSO branch. In a study carried out by the savings office in 1986, it was determined that in southern Ontario, 292,000 people live in 178 communities with no bank, trust company, credit union or caisse populaire. In the north, however, 76,355 people live in 286 communities with absolutely no financial institution.

The savings office examined options by which services could be provided to these communities, and after careful analysis, including discussions with the Alberta Treasury branches -- Alberta is the only other province in Canada, along with Ontario, that has government savings offices -- a program was defined by which savings office agents could be established in small or remote communities. A local person would act as an agent under direct supervision of a regular savings office branch. The agent would be paid by commission and would provide cheque-cashing and deposit services, plus other services such as money orders and travellers’ cheques.

Staff in the savings office have identified a number of communities in northern and eastern Ontario that in their opinion could support a Province of Ontario Savings Office branch. To ensure the branch would be available to provide this necessary support, the savings office has made arrangements with the Ministry of Government Services to provide space for branches in new government buildings that are being built in the north.

As a result, I am pleased to advise that the savings office will open a branch in Sudbury in July 1990. This will be followed by additional branches in Thunder Bay in December 1990 and Sault Ste Marie in December 1991.

These are the logical first steps to establish a presence in the north, as a basis for a network of agents located in smaller remote communities that are connected to the central branches by telephone or computer hookup. The decision on location of these branches will be made after the first three branches are established and the service is stabilized.

On the matter of further expansion of the service, I am not in a position to provide further details at this time. However, the government is presently carrying out a thorough study of POSO’s operations.

I will just make one last comment. It may be of interest to members to know that to play the active role proposed by the member for Leeds-Grenville, POSO’s statutes would require revision to give it a solid business mandate, which may involve changing its status to a crown agency rather than a department of the Ministry of Revenue, as it is presently.

I urge all members to support the resolution of the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Wildman: I rise in support of the resolution and congratulate the member for Leeds-Grenville in bringing the matter before the House.

I must say also that I found the intervention of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) quite helpful. He characterized it as an advertisement proposal, but I think it was useful to the members of the House because it did outline the operations of the savings offices and the possible approaches to expanding into other areas.

I might say at the outset without being too partisan, as this is private member’s hour, that when I read this first resolution and saw who had introduced it I was tempted to ridicule, not the aim of the resolution as I support it, but the fact that this could indeed be seen as a serious intervention in the invisible hand of the marketplace, an attempt by government to somehow limit the free market and somehow interfere with the market forces of which we know the member for Leeds-Grenville is very supportive and is wont to expound about in this House on occasion.

However, I do understand his concern, as he represents a rural area in eastern Ontario, an area I am familiar with. Also, as I represent a very large rural constituency in northern Ontario, I know exactly the problems he is having.

In Canada, I suppose the banking system is the epitome of the capitalist system. He used the term “bottom line” in another context in his presentation, but the member for Leeds-Grenville will recognize that the banks, for obvious reasons, are concerned about the bottom line, and the bottom line is that it is not profitable enough for the banks to maintain branches or even satellite branches in many small communities because the amount of business does not balance off the overhead, the cost of doing business, in those communities.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere pointed out that there is one financial institution branch for every 1,900 residents in Ontario, but he did point out a large number of communities that have no financial institutions of any kind.

In my area, we have a very difficult situation in a community called White River, which I know you are familiar with, Mr Speaker. It is halfway between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie on Highway 17. That means it is approximately 200 miles from the Sault and Thunder Bay. The closest full-fledged bank branches to White River are in Wawa, 60 miles to the southeast, or Marathon, 60 miles to the northwest. One of the banks had historically maintained a branch in White River, but it was closed a few years ago during an economic downturn in White River.

Since that time, the same bank has run a satellite service from Wawa to White River a couple of days a week. This has meant enormous inconvenience to the local businesses and has meant long, long lineups.

During a couple of election campaigns, I found that the best way to canvass in White River was simply to go to the bank on the day it was open. You could meet just about everybody in town there because they were lined up around the block. This is most inappropriate. I also understand, though, the bank’s position. The bank has extended service somewhat for a few more days after a great deal of pressure from the local town council, myself and the local business community, to try to alleviate the lineups and the inconvenience, but the bank says it cannot promise to do this for ever unless business picks up, because it does not feel it is profitable enough for it to do this.

I also support this resolution because I think it would give an option to communities like White River. I am sorry, though, that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere did not make this clear: Besides opening new offices in Sudbury and Thunder Bay in the north that could then become the focal point for telephone networking to allow for agency branches in the small communities that do not have financial institutions, he did not say that POSO is actively advertising this so people know about it. I do not think there is any attempt by the Ministry of Revenue to promote the possibility of establishing near-banks -- Province of Ontario Savings Office branches -- in these small communities.

The member mentioned Alberta. Alberta established a similar institution many years ago and I understand it has, in proportion, something like five times as many offices as Ontario, if you take population into account. Of course, the reason in Alberta was that it was an attempt to encourage economic activity in rural communities and particularly in agricultural communities, to make financing available to the farm community.

I think we should be looking at the Province of Ontario Savings Office branches in a similar way in Ontario. My former colleague from Welland-Thorold was a great advocate of this approach, to try to assist the rural communities and agriculture to obtain banking services in areas where they were not available, and also, frankly, as a way of alleviating some of the interest squeeze farmers face by providing loans at lower interest rates to farmers.

I am a little concerned about the approach, even with the expansion since 1986, that POSO takes in Ontario. I understand there are about 21 offices in this province. Six of them are in Toronto. If there is any community that has a myriad of financial institutions and banking services in this province, it is Toronto. I really do not see why more than the head office should be located in this city.

I understand there is one located in Ottawa as well. Again, it is not a community that is short of banking services. If that is seen as a regional headquarters for POSO, which then could be expanded into eastern Ontario in a way similar to what the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was saying POSO hopes to do in northern Ontario by establishing branches in Sudbury and Thunder Bay, that would be useful. But if it just a branch to operate in Ottawa without expanding into the rest of the eastern Ontario communities, it is not very useful.

The banks in this province are in business to make as much money as possible, to maximize profits. They are the only institutions in our economy that benefited from the federal budget. Frankly, it is amusing, or I think even tragic that the federal Minister of Finance did not take the opportunity to impose some further taxation on the banks, since he had whipped up such a concern about needing to consolidate and improve the revenues of the federal government while cutting expenditures.

The banks expected it and obviously were not too happy about it. It was a nice surprise to them that they did not have to pay. They are the only institutions that got off without having to pay. I think that is unfortunate. It seems to me that if the banks are indeed going to be able to make as much money as they make and have the tremendous concentration of wealth that we have in this country, which is far greater even than in the United States in the banking institutions, they should be obligated to provide services in the smaller communities.

If, however, we cannot and do not have a government that is prepared to try to encourage the banks to move, and as a part of doing business to provide services that perhaps do not make them as much money and perhaps even cost them some money, then we should be counteracting that by providing an alternative service in small communities, like White River in my riding, that are seeing banking services curtailed, making it difficult for local small business to expand and for the residents of the communities to obtain the savings and financing services they need.

Mr Cureatz: As we are participating in this debate after the fallout of the budget, I have to begin my remarks by indicating that I am supporting my colleague’s resolution this morning. Of course, it would now be apparent, from listening to those who have already spoken before me, that he does have support.

I want, though, to do something a little different. I mean, am I known for it or not? I thought to myself, “Self, is this something that has happened close to my particular riding of Durham East?” Interestingly enough, about a year ago in the great riding of Northumberland, which is the riding east of mine, my wife and family happened to vacation in the community of Colborne. Castleton is a very small community north of Colborne, a very small hamlet. They had what I guess you would call a part-time bank that opened two days a week in the mornings. Lo and behold, it was closed and I thought to myself that was a little sad.

Am I allowed to name banks? Are we protected? Two weeks ago I got a call, I think, from the Royal Bank, the head officer out of Oshawa or something. He left a message, “Tell the member that we are closing the branch office in Blackstock.” I thought to myself, “Now isn’t that rascally?” It is so frustrating when you get the call from on high. I can remember waiting for years trying to get the call from the then Premier to get into cabinet.

Now I get another call from another hierarchy, way up in the towers of Bay Street, telling me that one of my little communities, Blackstock, will not have the facility of a banking service. I sort of sat back in my chair and just shrugged. I mean, how do you attack the banks?

I remind everybody that they can just sit around the Golden Horseshoe and look towards Toronto and can see those darned bank towers sticking up in the sky. We are all paying our interest to the banks so they can build the darned things. You say to yourself, “How does that relate to the community of Blackstock so the residents there would have banking facilities?” We are pushing all this stuff into the big Toronto King-Bay Street area and there are people out in those rural communities who want these kinds of services.

I have the map of Ontario for all members who are not familiar with it. When you look down at the legend here, there is a little circle. When you see this little circle, it says, “Community or community within a regional municipality.” I took a look across just southern Ontario, because my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) certainly has a better working handle in terms of northern Ontario, and I circled some areas right across southern Ontario where I bet they do not have banking facilities and where, I guarantee members, there are people who have to travel a great deal of distance to do their banking.

Of course now, I say to my colleague the member for Durham Centre (Mr Furlong), with this very onerous provincial budget, this sin tax on driving, it is going to be more expensive to drive to those communities. Why can we not start thinking in terms of looking at the smaller hamlets for part-time services?

Let’s just take a tour boat, as Bud Germa, the former member for Sudbury used to say, across southern Ontario, starting down to the west. I wonder what is happening in Cottam, or in Merlin, or how about near Nanticoke? I know Nanticoke is sort of a bit bigger community. I am sure it will have a banking facility. But how about Villa Nova, and then working our way further north, north of London to Newry, or Bluevale, or how about way up in the peninsula, Clarks Corners? Do members think these communities have banking facilities?

Certainly with today’s technology we could come up with the solution to work out a system to help facilitate banking requirements of our people in the province. Just north of Toronto -- well, halfway between Toronto and Collingwood -- Terra Nova; and how about in the riding of my colleague who is sitting here to my right, farther east into Tamworth, Enterprise, Kirk Cove, Catchacoma, Flower Station?

An Hon member: Absolutely nothing.

Mr Cureatz: He is familiar with it. He says, “Absolutely nothing.”

Surely with today’s technology we could get our act together to do something. I heard my colleague who brought forward the resolution say how he turned to the banks and how he turned to the trust companies. My NDP friend the member for Algoma indicated that when he had the problem, the banks indicated that they look to the bottom line.

I will tell the members, as I indicated in one of the committees, I do not ever remember the president of General Motors campaigning for me in my elections, and I get labelled as a Tory supporting big business; nor do I remember one of the presidents of the big banks ever canvassing for good old Sam Cureatz in Durham East who is a Conservative and I still get labelled as a Conservative. So why should I worry about the banks?

I say, let’s take a look at these good corporate citizens who are building these huge monstrosities in downtown Toronto, causing traffic chaos to such an extent that now this government has to put in a special tax on the greater Toronto area to alleviate the problem. Why do we not start thinking of first putting some pressure on these banks to follow the position of being good corporate citizens and moving out into these communities?

We heard it already from my colleague who brought in the resolution: “Well, we can’t do that. It’s the technology, it’s the computers; it just won’t work.” Gobbledegoosh, or as they used to say in law school -- what did they used to say in law school -- balderdash. You hear this all the time from these big institutions, which are as bad as big majority governments, as we have here presently in Ontario, and there is a road that should be taken to look in these smaller communities.

I indicated that we do have a problem in terms of the seniors, because do members know what this means now? A senior in the rural communities -- and look, they do not all want to come to the greater Toronto area, they want to stay in their local municipalities -- has to turn to his friends, his neighbours, his relatives, and rightly so, but in terms of banking it is a personal relationship in terms of a person’s monetary status. Why do they have to rely now on somebody else? Why can they not follow through on their personal finances directly with the institution?

Now with the closures, as I have indicated in my own community in Blackstock -- and in Durham East we could be looking at places like Columbus, Raglan, Myrtle Station, Myrtle, Kendal, my little home community. Pontypool, I think, does have an institution, as does Bethany, but Nestleton or Nestleton Station, Seagrave, Caesaria, and Janetville -- Janetville services a large area.

As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has allowed a franchise operation with a liquor store. That is a step in the right direction, and certainly I support my colleague who brought forward the resolution that indicated -- look, we don’t need 57 storeys of a bank building in downtown Janetville, but what we could use is a little corner so that people in that surrounding area would have the opportunity of walking to the bank, or at least not driving so far.

Alternatively, if we cannot put some kind of heat on these big banking institutions, then maybe we should be thinking in terms of approaching the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Certainly, the speaker from the government side indicated it would be supportive of something innovative along that line, and maybe that is the road we have to go.

I am looking with great interest to see if this resolution can be followed up, because when I look at a map of Ontario, you can draw a line roughly from Cobourg along Highway 401 west up to Barrie, then south again around Toronto to St Catharines and around the Niagara Peninsula. Within that area, generally speaking, I bet you would not have too much difficulty banking. You could single out areas such as Ottawa, London, Windsor and St Thomas; those communities, I am sure, can adequately supply the needs of their citizens.

But when you look at the map of Ontario, you see the great big white areas with little tiny black dots all over the place. The government cannot service those people the way they expect to be if it is going to keep raising the gas prices. I say to that rascal member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) that I watched with glee as he banged his desk when the Treasurer announced the payroll tax. I want him to now start going across Ontario and get his picture in a nice fancy magazine and let him try to explain to all those fine businesses how and why he supports that increase.

And now we have the huge increase in gasoline tax. That just deters more people from driving their vehicles. We should be trying to implement a situation so that people can do their banking in their own little local community.

Mr Mahoney: To that rascal member who just spoke, the honourable sir, the member for Durham East, as a matter of fact I will start right now defending that without any difficulty.

What I find most interesting in speaking in support of the resolution by the member for Leeds-Grenville is the apparent Conservative Party philosophy of saying, “We have principles, and if you don’t like them, we have others.”

It is quite clear to me that the members opposite in supporting this resolution are indeed supporting a resolution that is antiprivatization.

Mr Dietsch: “What principles do I put on today?”

Mr Mahoney: That is right; they seem to change with the wind, even though I think that for a very unusual moment the member for Leeds-Grenville has obviously come to his senses, I must point out to the member for Durham East, who said he could not remember the banks campaigning for him in the last election, and I want you to know, Mr Speaker, that in his campaign literature -- he is not dumb -- he had himself standing beside a gentleman we all know and love in this House, the Premier (Mr Peterson). It drove his colleagues wild.

They said, “What is a Conservative member doing campaigning with literature with the Premier on the front page?” He actually had the common sense to put the Premier’s picture in his literature. To me, that showed he really is a closet Liberal, who would really rather be on this side of the House. It is actually further proof of that this morning that the member for Durham East is supporting this almost left-of-centre resolution by the slightly right-of-centre member for Leeds-Grenville.

Having said that, I want to congratulate both members for showing such common sense, because this is clearly not simply a small-town issue. In fact, I totally agree -- and not very often do I agree -- with the federal member, the honourable Don Blenkarn, who is chairman of the federal standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs in Ottawa. Mr Blenkarn, members will recall, has led some rather vociferous -- he tends to be vociferous at the best of times -- attacks against the banking institutions for some of their activities.

I think he was quite correct and quite appropriate in doing that, in most instances. I would say that if this resolution were to be supported, clearly this would provide some better competition to those large banking institutions that the member was referring to with their towers in downtown Toronto. It would provide an opportunity for the people in the rural communities of this province to have better access to what really is a tremendous service.

I was interested in reading in the Toronto Star an

article by Conrad Yakabuski, who says, “It no doubt comes as a surprise to most Ontarians, who are unaware that their government even owns a bank....” It may be a quasi-bank. It is not in the lending business, but it still provides financial services to the people in those rural communities. He goes on to say that “The Province of Ontario Savings Office would begin offering GlCs” -- guaranteed investment certificates -- “and would add to its current 21 branches. It indicated the government wants more people to know about this rather unique financial institution.”

I would say that the resolution of the member opposite will indeed accomplish that and will allow for more people in the province to realize that we are very competitive. I believe the interest rate, as the parliamentary assistant has informed me, for GICs at the POSO institutions is 11.6 per cent, which is extremely generous and very competitive with the trust companies. I should point out, though, particularly to the members in the Conservative Party, who are always so concerned with privatization, with the philosophy that Conservative governments around the world are espousing.

In England Margaret Thatcher is even talking about privatizing the building of roads and putting up toll booths -- actually putting it out to the private sector. Normally the Conservative Party, and particularly the member for Leeds-Grenville, is one to expound upon the merits of doing that, but I would point out that Randall Chan, a spokesman for the Canadian Bankers’ Association, has stated that the POSO operation, as a government agency, is not subject to income or capital taxes, nor is it required to deposit cash reserves with the Bank of Canada, or anywhere else, for that matter.

The trust companies, of course, are equally upset. It is pretty easy to understand why they do not think that the government should be competing with them to deliver services.

In reality, you see, I think that is the difference. I think our friends on the extreme left of the political spectrum would rather the government take over banking and auto insurance and just about any other private operation that you can think of. The people on the right of the political spectrum, of course, think that the private sector should just be allowed to run amok, which it has been doing in some instances.

It takes a calm, reasonable Liberal -- large, capital L Liberal -- position to realize that there must be a balance in society; to realize that we cannot simply leave it to the hawkish members of the business community to go out and provide services. Yet, on the other hand, we should not leave it to the bureaucracy that can accompany any kind of a government operation.

Quite clearly, I very much believe, as the small business advocate, that the private sector can generally do it better than government, regardless of what it is, but I also believe that the government must offer a certain tempering to that type of facility. Quite surprisingly, the member for Leeds-Grenville obviously agrees with me on that.

I think it should also be clear that it is not simply an issue for the small communities, because many people in the larger communities, of course, tend to take vacations in those beautiful smaller communities, tend to own property in those communities, and so they would like to have the facilities. Actually I quite agree that it would be very beneficial if the banks would put in the machines that are so prevalent in this community, in the Toronto area. Certainly in Mississauga, there is a bank machine on every corner. It is very convenient.

I think it would be helpful, if this government continues, along with the Treasurer, its very aggressive attitude towards the savings offices in the small communities, maybe we will force the large banks and the trust companies to become a little more competitive and perhaps offer some services.

Whether they are part-time or full-time services, they could at least offer some services in those communities that would then accommodate not only the all-year-round, full-time residents of those communities but also the summer residents, the vacationing residents and the students who in many cases go to those communities to find part-time work in the summertime. Perhaps they spend the summer at the cottage or the summer home,

whereas they live in the larger city. If they go there, they would like to have a savings office where they could deposit their money.

Clearly, this resolution, as shocking as it is coming from the member, is a resolution that is worthy of support. I know the member has saved about seven minutes for his final wrapup, which appears to be what we have left in this hour, so I will just say that I am delighted, in this instance, one of the few times, to support the member for Leeds-Grenville in his resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The time remaining permits only the member for Leeds-Grenville to give his wrapup.

Mr Runciman: If no one has any objection, the member for Hastings-Peterborough asked for two minutes. Can I allocate two minutes of that time to him?

The Acting Speaker: Not without unanimous consent. It would revert back to the opposition in rotation.

Some hon members: Agreed.

Agreed to.

Mr Pollock: I would like to thank the member for Leeds-Grenville for giving me a couple of minutes of his time.

I might say that I certainly support his resolution. I do not have quite the same problem that he has. I have a municipality which did not lose a bank; it has just been lobbying for a bank for quite some time. That is the municipality of Coe Hill. The good citizens of Coe Hill have been trying to get a bank there for quite some time. It would be a plus to have any outlet, and I am sure they would welcome the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

Coe Hill is actually about 35 kilometres from Bancroft, which has the nearest banking facility in the one area. On the other side, they are about 30 kilometres from Apsley. It is quite a distance for those people to travel to actually get banking services. There are senior citizens in the Coe Hill area. Also, Coe Hill is a tourist town. There are some lakes around there, like Wollaston Lake. This would be a plus for the tourist industry, too.

As I say, I am supporting the resolution of the member for Leeds-Grenville, and I hope all members of this House would join with him in that respect.

The Acting Speaker: Now, the member for Leeds-Grenville to wrap up the debate.

Mr Runciman: I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for their comments. I qualify that somewhat in respect of the comments from the member for Mississauga West. As the small business advocate for that government, it is somewhat scary to hear the sort of anti-private-sector diatribe that spewed forth a few moments ago. I think that certainly with respect to small business the budget is not receiving any accolades, so obviously the advocate was not having a great deal of influence in that sector in the development of the budget.

I do take exception with respect to my sharing his view of the role of the Province of Ontario Savings Office. He has a much larger mandate in mind. I look at it as primarily serving in areas where the chartered banks and trust companies are not playing an active role and are not prepared to play an active role.

I share the concerns here in respect of chartered banks in this province and this country. They have operated in a very protected environment. Seemingly, in areas such as small communities in rural Ontario they are not prepared to make that kind of sacrifice. They are not prepared to make that kind of commitment to this province or this country.

I share the views of my colleague the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz). I have no reservations whatsoever about criticizing the actions or inactions of chartered banks and their commitment to the small rural communities in this country. I just do not think they have done the job. I think they are obviously not prepared to do the job, and this is an area where the provincial government can fill that void, can provide that very much needed service.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for his comments as well. He was very enlightening with respect to the history of POSO. It was interesting to note that Harry Nixon, the father of the current Treasurer, was a member of the United Farmers of Ontario. I was not aware of that. Someone suggested we now know that the current Treasurer was the offspring of a UFO. That might explain in some people’s minds why on occasion he may seem spaced out or from some other planet. In any event, we very much appreciate that information.

I want to talk very briefly in the few minutes I have left. Again, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere mentioned that one element of the original mandate of POSO was the promotion and development of agriculture. I think that ties in very nicely with the message I am attempting to deliver here today. This is an area that is certainly in need of this kind of service.

We can look at a host of other areas. We are especially trying to keep seniors in their homes for many more years than has been the case in the past. We are looking at the Victorian Order of Nurses, we are looking at Red Cross homemaker services, a host of services -- repairs to their homes, having individuals available to live in their homes and so on -- to assist them in remaining in their homes. Those kinds of programs are out there. They are available through all three levels of government.

This is another kind of service that can be provided, I suggest, in very innovative ways. We do not have to look at large banking facilities. They can operate out of grocery stores or hardware stores, similar to post office branches and agency stores for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, that kind of operation, in a very innovative way.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere mentioned two new branches, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, and talked about satellites developing off of them. We already have a branch in Ottawa with respect to eastern Ontario. I have not heard of any discussion with respect to the development of satellites from the Ottawa branch for that part of eastern Ontario. I would think that Kingston -- and the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes) is here this morning -- would be very supportive of the establishment of a branch of POSO in Kingston.

Mr Keyes: No, on Wolfe Island. The big banks pulled out.

Mr Runciman: Or Wolfe Island. Kingston indeed could serve as the base for satellites on Wolfe Island, in Lyndhurst or North Augusta or areas surrounding his area, my area or that of the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South). We would all welcome this kind of expansion of services provided by the Province of Ontario Savings Office.

I want to encourage the members of the government especially to bend the arm of the Minister of Revenue to ensure that he gets the message from this resolution that those of us representing eastern Ontario want to see this go forward. We want to see it developed in a very meaningful way in the next couple of years, not simply that this resolution is going to be passed and then go to the shelves and remain there for ever and a day. We want to see some meaningful action and we are optimistic and hopeful, based on the responses I have heard today, that this indeed it is going to occur.

I want to thank all members of the House again for their supportive comments today.

HOME CARE

Mr Matrundola moved resolution 9:

The Acting Speaker: I remind the member that he has 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a wrapup.

Mr Matrundola: Dignity, compassion, choice and quality care as well as saving the taxpayers of Ontario a considerable amount of money -- that is what this resolution is all about: allowing our elderly, ill and disabled citizens to live in dignity with compassion and a choice of the type of quality health care they need, desire and deserve.

We all seem to agree that it is much more cost-effective to have people remain in their own homes rather than go into institutions, but we should also be looking beyond costs. We should be looking to humanity and dignity for the people who built this province. It is often better to be cared for in a familiar environment by someone you know and trust. It can also be more therapeutic, especially when a care giver cares about and loves the patient.

It is obviously not possible in every circumstance. Indeed, in many circumstances there may not be a relative available or healthy enough to provide the needed care. Also, they may not be able to afford the reduction in income for the person to leave work and provide the care.

However, there are some people who are already doing this and suffering tremendous financial hardship. In my time as a member of this Legislature and even before, I have met a number of loving, dedicated people, some of whom are in the gallery here today and who are providing these services to their loved ones at a tremendous personal cost.

A constituent of mine, Mrs Nardone, was forced to leave her factory work because after working all day she would come home at night to take care of her husband Alex. She would spend most of the night caring for him and would get very little sleep. At work the next day she would be too tired to concentrate and could easily hurt herself on the machinery. Finally, she could not continue to risk her own health through this pattern and was forced to choose between her job and her husband.

She decided to stay home to take care of her husband and is now relying on his disability pension only. If she is never able to return to work, she will not have contributed to the Canada pension plan. If she is able to return to work, she will not have contributed to unemployment insurance during this period and will not have an income while she is looking for work.

We have other examples here. Ms Arena was looking after her parents. Another woman I am familiar with, Mrs Allen, is also in the gallery. She is unable to work because her mother needs around-the-clock care but does not have to be in a hospital. Her mother would not stay in an institution and she does not want to have her mother in an institution. She has been taking care of her mother by herself for 10 years or more.

These people are caring, compassionate people. After years of love and companionship, they cannot bring themselves to put their spouse, parent or child in an institution. Even if they wanted to, we do not have enough institutional beds for all these people.

Another woman, Mrs Harrison, who is also in the gallery, wrote:

“I desperately want to keep my husband at home -- in his own environment -- where he receives exceptional care, love and comfort on a one-to-one basis, and in so doing, save the taxpayers millions of dollars.

“As things stand now, we (the care givers) feel victimized, are subjected to incredible indignity and insensitivity, and are grandly ignored.

“It is a great service we are rendering to our society, one done with a great deal of love and compassion. I can assure you that it is feasible only if the care givers receive financial assistance from both the federal and provincial governments.”

Mrs Harrison gave up her job as a teacher in order to look after her husband, who has Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. The money they have saved for their retirement is quickly being used up. She will have very little, if anything, left for herself.

Of course, our government does have a number of home care programs. The integrated homemaker program through the Ministry of Community and Social Services; the Ministry of Health’s home care program, workers’ compensation and some municipalities all offer one type or another of home care services.

However, while these programs are constantly being expanded, there is still a very large shortage between what is being offered and what is being requested and needed. Some of this is due to the funding limitations and some of it is due to the problem of finding people willing to do home care work.

The ministries of Health and Community and Social Services are doing their best to come to terms with these problems. They are both working very hard at finding alternatives to institutionalizing people and they are planning new ways to move care back into the home and the community. But the numbers are so large that it is not something that we can solve overnight.

Canada and Ontario in particular have one of the highest rates of institutionalization in the world. In a study done in the late 1970s, 7.5 per cent of Canadians over 65 were in long-term institutional care, a rate surpassed only by Sweden and Holland. Within Canada, Ontario had the third highest rate, behind only Manitoba and Alberta.

Currently, 10.5 per cent of our population is over the age of 65, and between 1983 and 2001 this number is expected to increase by 55 per cent, compared to an overall growth of 16 per cent. Furthermore, by the year 2006 the number of people over the age of 85 is expected to increase by 117 per cent. Although this statistic is very good news, because we all are going to live longer, these numbers are quite staggering and will put more pressure on our entire health care system.

A consultant’s report last year found that half of the residents in our institutions required less than the amount of care that was being provided there. They felt that these people could return to their homes if the support services were in place. This is one way of providing some of the support services.

The National Advisory Council on Aging in 1986 found that home care costs only 11 per cent to 14 per cent of institutional care.

As I said, the government is already doing a great deal in this area. In 1987-88, we spent $80 million on homemaking services, and this is expected to increase to $140 million by the year 1990-91. The Ministry of Health recently released an operational review of its home care program. The review showed that the home care program cost $245 million in 1987-88, but it probably saved $1.8 billion in capital costs and $773 million annually in operating costs.

Even though in yesterday’s budget the home care program was increased to $349 million, it still does not address our problem. What this resolution proposes is another step along this road.

Our concern, however, should not be just with money but with how people want to live. A number of agencies have looked into this area. In 1985, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario asked the elderly what type of housing they would want, if they had difficulty caring for their own needs: 57 per cent said that they would want to stay at home with community services to assist them, 16 per cent that they would like to move in with family members and 3 per cent that they would like to move in with friends.

The ethnic makeup of our province brings with it other concerns. The West Toronto Support Services Italian Outreach Project did a study which found that older members of the Italian community will not accept help from strangers but will accept help from family members. They do not feel comfortable having strangers come into their own homes to care for them. I would like to add that this is not only with the people of Italian descent; it is also very frequent with people of other communities, of other descent and ethnic origins.

The Federation of Italian Canadian Seniors looked at health care requirements of Italian seniors and found that 30 per cent of them were unaware of the programs available to them and that over 90 per cent said they would prefer to remain in their own homes with assistance.

In the past, it was natural for a wife who did not work to look after parents or children. Today, with more women entering the workforce and the reliance on two incomes, as well as cultural changes, these people are not available to look after their parents without assistance.

Moreover, there is an acute shortage of trained homemakers in the province. The Interministerial Committee on Visiting Homemakers felt that there would be a need to train between 1,700 and 4,700 new homemakers in 1988-89, depending on how heavily the government gets involved, and this will continue to increase.

Due to low pay and demanding work, it is getting increasingly hard to find people to do the work. The Homemakers and Nurses Service Act defines homemaking services as: child care when parents are incapacitated; meal planning, preparation and marketing, including special diets; light, heavy and seasonal cleaning; light laundry and essential mending; personal care and hygiene, and bedside care but not nursing care.

As you can expect, it is not always easy to find someone to do this type of work at the relatively low wages with the compassion and concern that is needed. We may find younger people willing to be homemakers while they look for some other type of employment; but after a short time, they tend to leave the business, because they can find other jobs that pay a lot better and are also less demanding.

I feel we need mature, dedicated, caring and compassionate people who will cater to the personal needs of the individual, such as the people we have here in the gallery today. That is what we need. Of course, there is a shortage of this type of person. But the people that this resolution will support may continue this type of work outside of the home, and these people, who know and care about the work, could make excellent homemakers for other people as well.

The concept of relatives acting as care givers and being compensated for it is not a unique one. In New Zealand, a benefit is paid to those caring for elderly persons on a full-time basis. In Norway, some municipalities provide what they call “nursing pay” when elderly people are cared for at home. In Finland, a home care allowance is given to the elderly person to hire someone to care for him.

Currently, there is a three-week home training support program, with other courses available through community colleges. The people who would qualify under this resolution could either take the course or be examined to ensure they know what is necessary.

However, you can be sure that while hired homemakers do their very best at their jobs, care givers looking after relatives are going to provide more and better care in most cases.

The last part of the resolution deals with the Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance. If someone leaves work to provide these services, when the ill person passes away, recuperates or has to be hospitalized, the care giver is often emotionally and physically drained. They have also not contributed to these plans and have nothing to draw from.

If they had paid unemployment insurance contributions, they would be able to collect the benefits while looking for a job, and if they had continued their CPP contributions, they would have more to draw on at retirement. Many care givers acknowledge these changes alone would be of great assistance to them. We would also have mature, compassionate and experienced homemakers who would be able to assist other patients in the home care program.

While this program would cost money, I feel it would be well spent and would save money over the long term. It would not apply to everyone who needs home care. it would have to be acceptable to both the patient and the potential care giver, which would limit the takeup of the program. As well, it could apply mainly to people who have been working and would be giving up some income to provide this service. By only paying them up to the rate of a homemaker, you are further limiting it because many people would be unwilling or unable to take that drastic a reduction in salary. But if they opted for this, it would at least help them pay for groceries and other necessities.

People suffering from many diseases, including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, need around-the-clock care. If they are left alone, they can do harm to themselves, or they may need to be turned over in bed regularly, have dressings changed or medication given. They also need consistency in the people who are caring for them and need people who understand them as well as the disease.

Care givers are able to do this, and of course would not expect to be paid for 24 hours of work. The resolution contemplates compensating them for a regular workweek, although it is clear the job is not a nine-to-five job. They could sign an employment contract with the government or a homemaking agency that would last until the patient recovered, had to be hospitalized or passed away. At the end of this time, depending on their age, they would be eligible for unemployment insurance while they looked for a job, or could collect their pension.

I feel I was elected to help make decisions that will better the lives of the citizens of Ontario. That is what I am trying to do with this resolution. The elderly are the people who built this country and this province in particular. We must treat them, as well as the disabled and ill, with the dignity and respect they deserve. We must work to ensure their days are as comfortable as possible, and passing this resolution would be one small step in that direction.

Ms Bryden: The member for Willowdale is doing a service to the Legislature by alerting the public to the desperate shortage of homemaker services. It is vital to avoid institutionalization of seniors when simple services provided by homemakers are not available. People in hospitals cannot be discharged, even though they no longer need acute care, when homemaker services are not adequate.

I can sympathize with those people who have the responsibility for a frail, elderly person, a handicapped child or a person who is developmentally retarded. I think the resolution is really an indictment of one of the greatest failures of the Liberal government that he supports, because after almost four years in government it has not brought the promised integrated home care program beyond the pilot project stage.

They have not fulfilled the pledge their leader the Premier (Mr Peterson) signed with the New Democratic Party leader, the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), in the 1985 NDP-Liberal accord that brought this government to power by mutual agreement on certain policies.

Let me quote to members what the May 1985 accord said. The pledge was “Reform of services for the elderly to provide alternatives to institutional care, and a reform of the present nursing home licensing and inspection system.” This pledge cannot be fulfilled without a province-wide integrated homemaker program.

Instead of moving ahead on this program to make it province-wide, we are actually going backwards. The whole program has been put in jeopardy by the terrible shortage of homemakers, because the wages are so low that private care givers cannot find employees willing to undertake this essential but difficult work with the sick and elderly.

Nonprofit care givers like the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Red Cross are in the same position, as the government grants from the province and the municipalities are inadequate to cover the costs today. The VON and the Red Cross did get the government belatedly to bail them out on the big deficits they were running, but it still does not meet the need for future care by these nonprofit bodies.

They have not solved the problem. In fact, they have frozen expansion of the whole homemaker program as of last September. This is probably what motivated the member for Willowdale to bring in this alternative proposal. I think we should look at any suggestions for ways to meet the homemaker crisis and help people who have a responsibility for family members who need extra services.

We know the number of family members who can help in the home with frail, elderly or disabled persons is shrinking, because more and more women particularly and both members of any family are having to take at least part-time or shift work to cover the high cost of living and housing, not to mention the higher regressive taxes imposed on them at the provincial level.

I intend to vote for the resolution with the rider that the whole question of providing adequate homemaker services across the province be studied by the government or a committee of the Legislature. This proposal under my rider should be considered only as one of many measures that might be looked at. It should possibly be considered as an emergency program for areas where homemaker services in either the public or the private sector are not adequate. It should not be considered a substitute for faster implementation of the government’s promises to improve and extend home care services of all kinds.

It should not justify the continuation of the freeze on expansion of homemaker services, which I understand is still in effect.

Yesterday’s budget does not hold out too much hope that the government will meet its obligation to provide adequate home care and homemaker services. I think there is $55 million in that budget for the next fiscal year that is supposed to cover a wide diversity of services in the home for the thousands of frail elderly, the developmentally handicapped, the sick, the physically handicapped and all the people who need that little extra service to enable them to stay in their own homes and to save the province the tremendous costs of institutionalizing these people, which I think are at least four or five times as much as the cost of home care and homemaker services.

It would also mean a lot to the government in savings in hospital bed costs, bed shortages and postponed surgery if more people in these categories who do not need acute care could be moved out of the hospitals into their own homes or group homes.

Unfortunately, the budget does not contain a strong commitment to the goal of providing and expanding adequate homemaker services. That is where I think the member for Willowdale should be directing his attention, to his own government, as to why in almost four years in power it has not achieved this very important and essential service of homemakers for all kinds of people who need those services.

I hope this resolution is a matter of putting pressure on the Liberal government to get on with its commitments about providing adequate homemaker services through both the public and the private sectors, with grants to private social service agencies in some cases and with public hospitals providing services through outpatient arrangements.

I think we should not consider this as a solution to the problem but as something that should be investigated in areas where homemaker services are not available, under very strict rules of course as to who would qualify and how much supervision there would be of the kind of care they give, the hours they provide it for and other matters of that sort. It should not just be an open-ended grant that somebody could apply for without having to go through certain requirements that would be part of any program for such emergency services.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Willowdale for the resolution he has put before the House, and more important, for the tremendous amount of research he put into this particular concern he has.

It is an area I have had to research quite extensively as well, given that my critic position is for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. So the concerns he has raised in his resolution are not new to myself and obviously are not new at all to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has also been sharing that critic portfolio with me.

On a number of occasions in the last year, we have asked questions in the House and I have spent literally hours in estimates asking questions of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) and some of our colleagues have asked questions of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) with regard to extended care legislation, with regard to all aspects of home care, with regard to assistance for the disabled and with regard to special-services-at-home programs for children. All of them have to do with a changing society and all of them have to do with families that truly want to keep their special family members in their own homes.

I was most interested to hear the information the member for Willowdale presented to this House today with regard to how many people wanted to remain in their own homes and how many people wanted to remain with their families. I think that is indicative of all of us. That would be our first choice.

Given that observation, the Liberal government made it one of its strong election promises, quite frankly, to extend the integrated homemaker program from some 18 centres to some 36 or 38 in the next couple of years. In fact, that promise should have been fulfilled at this time. What we have witnessed is no extension and we are very concerned about that. I know there are a lot of reasons for it, but I think the member for Willowdale is representing his constituents well by raising this very real concern.

The future trends he talked about are those all of us know about, which is that this problem is going to become a bigger one, I should not use the word “problem,” really; it is more a challenge. It is going to become a bigger one, as we are so successful in keeping people healthy for a longer period of time and in assisting in prevention.

I think one of the greatest concerns has been the deinstitutionalization challenge this government faces and the promises, again, that were made by the government to families: “If you can and are able to maintain your special family members, whether they be children or adults, in their own home, we will help you.” I have been very much involved in programs in my riding in London and across the province. I frequently talk to groups of parents of special children, many of whom are extremely disabled.

I share the member’s real picture he painted of the families that are so tired after being up most evenings with an ill family member, whether it be a young person or an elderly person, so physically and so mentally exhausted. The parents advised us that they did not have a choice after a period of time.

In fact, young mothers were having to make a very big family decision that affected other children in the family; that is, that in these very tough economic times, and I am talking about economic times for families, with the cost of housing -- everyone’s dream still is to own a home, I hope -- and with the increased taxes we looked at again just yesterday, there are challenges in maintaining a lifestyle, especially for young families. These young mothers are choosing to stay home with their young children and they will be there for as long as they can be.

I think the saddest issue I have faced in the last couple of months has been that those very families we chatted with some two and three years ago are now making decisions and asking for institutionalization, in a sense. Basically, they are looking for group homes and they are on very long waiting lists.

We have had some four or five press conferences in this building in the last six weeks by groups advising us about the lack of care for disabled people in their own homes, about the lack of housing, about the lack of homemaker services and about the lack of special-services-at-home programs.

I suppose my greatest concern with the motion will be that if we cannot do it now, where will we get the money to pay for it? Or is it going to be a priority of this government? Hopefully, we will be looking today at the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services. Perhaps as he responds to Transitions he will also respond in some way to the concerns the member for Willowdale has raised for us today.

As far as remuneration for family members is concerned, in my opinion I do not think you could ever remunerate family members who have chosen to stay home to take care of their elderly or their young disabled family members. So many of us, myself included, have this challenge in our own homes. I personally know what it is all about. As we look around us, many more elderly people are taking care of their elderly husbands, family members and neighbours who have become members of their family. I think it is because of the community we all live in. We still do care. We care a lot about our own families and our own communities. I hope we never lose it.

I am not sure what to do with the private member’s resolution. I certainly support his objective, and that is establishing a framework. I would have expected that he might have added -- and I ask the question -- disabled children. These are questions for the member. He might want to respond. Does this mean we allow mothers to stay home and mind their children, as they do in other countries, and are given an allowance to stay home? Is that something we should be looking at? Should we also be looking at paying the young mothers and fathers of disabled children to stay home because they are truly exhausted?

Do we look at paying people just to take care of their own relatives or can we also pay them for taking care of their elderly neighbours who in fact are basically extended family members in these times? Many of us were able to grow up in the same city and in the same neighbourhood as our relatives. Most of us have moved away from our home and we look to our neighbours and friends as our extended families.

In these times I think we should be looking seriously at the resolution of the member for Willowdale. I think the future trends are rather frightening in the sense that we are not caring right now for the people we have promised to care for. I would ask the member for Willowdale to respond to this. How much more pressure can we put on this government to make this area of concern a real priority?

In this very large province only 14,000 families a month are dealt with in the integrated homemaker program. Do members know the average amount of relief time families get? It is four hours a week. Are we going to pay the people who stay home with their own family members for four hours a week? That is all the help most of the integrated homemaker programs are allowing for the majority of families. For special services at home, the average amount of time per month is something like 10 hours. Is that the number of hours we should be supporting family members? This is a very large question.

I agree with the member’s comments on unemployment insurance and the pension plan and I think we should be looking at those kinds of remuneration or support for family members in another arena immediately.

I hope that this motion can be dealt with in some way, either at committee or in this House, but I think we have very many questions. I congratulate the member for bringing this to our attention.

Mr Keyes: I rise too with a great deal of admiration for the member for Willowdale for the work he has done in bringing forward this resolution. What he has said today in a very impassioned way truly shows his caring for people who are, as he has described in his resolution, the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill. I would suggest to the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) that I see his resolution somewhat encompassing all those situations where families -- and I can think of many too on a personal level -- have looked after their physically and mentally handicapped members from birth right through until the end.

In beginning, I want to sincerely congratulate the member for Willowdale, because he has in a number of instances talked about the need for the dignity, the compassion, the love for family members and I think that is so important as we deal with this situation. I appreciate very much the spirit in which he has put forth the resolution, because it is born out of compassion, the sincerity of his heart and a sense of fairness. Also, he has given us several personal examples.

I too can attest to those personal examples. I go back and think of the family farm on Wolfe Island, which has had five generations of people in it, and in each succeeding generation, one of the members of the family has looked after the frail elderly. I remember personally as my mother looked after my grandmother in the home as she became elderly, and in her 90s eventually feeble. I remember well being at her bedside when she passed away.

That mother of mine is now in much better health, shall we say, but at 91 years of age is reaching a point in time when we too must face the fact that she has served well on this earth but some day her time will come. She too is being looked after by members of the family living in that same home, and probably the same thing will happen in the next generation as we continue in that way, so I appreciate fully what the member is doing.

However, there are concerns about the resolution and the way it is framed. It needs a great deal of work on it in order to tidy it up. It is simply too open and is not as comprehensive as it should be. It has the potential in its current form of compromising to some extent the current Ministry of Health and Ministry of Community and Social Services standards of care that we have been so careful to develop. It needs a great structure in order to administer this, and it certainly has the potential of being subject to abuse.

It is very difficult to legislate the concept that the member for Willowdale is putting forward and what he supports, because as we try to keep our members of the family in their homes for longer periods of time and out of institutions, we must encourage this family support and recognize the love and the care that is provided in those situations. It is impossible for us to put a price on that type of support.

The Ministry of Health is concentrating its efforts -- and likewise those of the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- on improving the quality, the availability and the efficiency of its health services. At the same time, we are trying to ensure that they are well managed and they are fairly and reasonably funded. We encourage any suggestions of innovative ways such as this of providing health services. In fact, we do provide some of these very same types of services now on a pilot project basis.

Home care is available province-wide. We have 38 programs in operation; 29 of those 38 programs are run by boards of health. I will gladly give members my statistics. Others are sponsored by the Victorian Order of Nurses, public hospitals and a regional social services department. The very largest, here in Metropolitan Toronto, has its own autonomous board. We fund these local services fully through our annual program budgets.

Again, the member for Willowdale did an excellent job in his statistics of the moneys that have been spent, the moneys that are projected and the demographics of this province, which is one of the greatest challenges facing our whole health care system. As members know, under the Ministry of Health our home care services include nursing, homemaking, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, social work, nutrition counselling, respiratory technologists and enterostomal therapists. Our goal is to avoid or delay institutional admission, to reduce the length of stay in any of our institutions and facilitate earlier discharge from the hospital or other facility.

Home care originally focused on short-term care for acute illness, but in the 1970s chronic care pilot projects began. All of our 38 local programs today include both acute and chronic home care and the role is steadily expanding.

We now have school support services under home care. Home care agencies also administer a new home program that has been established in several pilot areas, providing housekeeping and similar services so that we do allow the frail elderly and the physically disabled to remain in their own homes, as the member has requested. While this is a social service, rather than a medically oriented program, we recognize the benefits of common case management and the convenience of access for the client.

Looking at the growth of this, we know that in 1987-88 we served some 610,000 people in this province, more than double the numbers we accommodated six years ago. During that same period of time, we more than tripled the money spent in that area, To give members a quick idea, in 1984-85 we spent $104.5 million. In 1985-86, the first year we took office, we increased that almost 50 per cent to $153 million and the following year to $201 million. In 1987-88 it was $245 million. This year, in the budget of yesterday, $349 million will go towards home care assistance, an increase of 25 per cent over last year.

In the budget of yesterday, 75 per cent of all the new expenditures are devoted towards the individual, to education, to health and to housing. It is individual and people oriented. We are also spending $108 million for community mental health programs, an increase of 30 per cent and an increase of another 17-plus per cent for alcohol and drug dependency.

When it comes to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, as we know from yesterday’s budget, there is an increase of 20 percent to $2.3 billion in the coming year.

One of the main aspects of our home care program must be that we have quality control, supervision, fiscal accountability, monitoring of effective and efficient provision of services and appropriate types and amounts of services as the needs change.

Homemaking issues fall within the jurisdiction of both the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, but basically for homemaking our services are medically oriented. They have the capacity at the moment to direct funds to families. While this proposal before us today may be contemplated in terms of some of the home services currently provided, we must ensure that medical treatment and professional services provided by the Ministry of Health are not compromised in planning an efficient and well managed health care system.

While I cannot support the honourable member’s resolution in its current form, we have heard expressed today on all sides of this House support for the concept of trying to provide kindly, compassionate, loving care for the frail elderly, the chronically ill and the disabled. No one can really oppose that concept.

However, I must say again that in the context of looking at a comprehensive, well planned, co-ordinated program in homemaking, we must continue with the progress we are making, increasing on an annual basis, and in this year by as much as 25 per cent again, the moneys that we provide so that all our persons can live in dignity with the compassion of their fellow members.

Mr Allen: I want to rise and address a few remarks to the resolution of the member for Willowdale which I thought was sensitively framed and well researched. Certainly his comments about the families he knows to whom this is addressed were very touching and moving.

At the same time, I want to say that I have some major concerns with the resolution. While I am not at all closed to the notion of moving in some respects in this direction, I will be voting against the resolution and certainly not for any hard-hearted reason. I do believe that the direction in which this province has been moving towards an integrated homemaker program is, in fact, the direction we have to take with respect to the support of families who so badly need the backup in dealing with members of their families who are disabled frail elderly in their attempt to keep them in their own homes or to maintain the elderly in their own individual places of residence.

What I am, unfortunately, struck by as I confront that proposition is that on 3 September, the Premier had a very specific proposal to make at that point in time, which was that in the course of the subsequent three years after the election, his government would be moving to complete the program of 38 centres providing integrated homemaker services -- namely, homemaking, home care and meals availability to those families and those persons.

Yet, today, we have not moved beyond the number of instances where those homemaking services were in place. Eighteen was the number that we had chalked up at that point in time; 18 it is today. As of December of that same year, the assistant deputy minister of the community services division of the Ministry of Community and Social Services was writing to his field workers saying that he regretted the premature capping of this new program before it had become well established and mature.

By the next June, the minister received a large report, the triministerial committee’s report on homemaking services, which said directly to him what he needed to do with respect to addressing the crisis in homemaking that had begun to afflict this province. He was told that the question of low wages, the problem of lack of training and the problem of lack of benefits were critical to the problems of maintaining an adequate service out there for families.

He said that he would be addressing those problems within the next month. We have yet to receive an announcement as to how he plans to move ahead with respect to the integrated homemaker program, which has been in a state of relative disarray now for months and months on end, to the point where this last January the major deliverer of that service, the Red Cross, and a number of other agencies indicated they could no longer stand to rack up deficits to the tune of almost $2 million in the course of the past year’s operations and that they had to have some kind of relief or else they were going out of business.

That is how serious a situation the support of families and homes and individuals trying to keep seniors at home was in at the beginning of this year. So I find myself a little bit betwixt and between with respect to the member’s resolution, because while I understand and sympathize with the compassionate grounds upon which he is proposing it, I in no way want to compromise the major thrust and direction of this province in supporting families in the concerns that he has.

For my money, that means that we cannot give this government any opportunity to abandon, to qualify, or to modify in any respect the major thrust that it has undertaken and promised to this province -- namely, that it will expand and complete the integrated homemaker system. When I see that in place and well funded, I will be happy to listen further to the member and to certainly listen very carefully and respond as best I can to the kind of program that he is supporting.

I do not reject any refinements, add-ons or supplements to the integrated homemaker program; far from that, but I want to see an adequate, properly structured, backup system. I know at the present time there are concerns about elder abuse, and one has to recognize the compassion and concern of families who look after the elderly. But we do not have an advocacy system in place.

We do not have an accountability proposal matched in this resolution to make certain that there is no abuse taken of seniors as the government’s money is taken in hand in order, ostensibly, to look after senior elderly parents.

The Speaker: The member has now run out of time.

Mr Allen: I think we need to look at this issue, but I will be opposing it on those grounds.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member for Willowdale reserved almost two minutes.

Mr Matrundola: I would like to thank all the members who participated in this debate. As I have said before, it is important that we discuss new and innovative ways of assisting the citizens of Ontario. We cannot continue to put all our elderly and disabled people into institutions as we used to do. We cannot afford it economically or humanely.

Who better can provide the care than a relative who cares deeply for the patient? But, very often, those willing to give the care need assistance. We are not talking about the bank president who receives $100,000 a year or more. We are talking about providing someone with the means to live while they look after their loved ones. Not every elderly, ill or disabled person will take advantage of it, but the cost to do something includes savings to existing support services and institutions, as well as human cost.

As I said previously, we have a responsibility to the citizens of Ontario. I believe in the saying, “The character of a nation is best judged by the rights it extends to its minorities.” We owe the people a chance to live in dignity, and this is one way of ensuring that they can.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on ballot item 3 and ballot item 4.

BANKING SERVICES

The Speaker: Mr Runciman has moved resolution 5.

Motion agreed to.

HOME CARE

The Speaker: Mr Matrundola has moved resolution 9.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The House recessed at 1202.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr Wildman: Tough times have hit the Ministry of Natural Resources and the management of resources in northern Ontario. MNR’s total budget was cut by three per cent in yesterday’s provincial user-pay budget. Natural Resources is the only ministry whose budget has been cut.

As a result of these tough times, budget cuts and so on, morale in the Ministry of Natural Resources district offices has reached an all-time low. Severe constraints and more job losses will hurt morale even more, but this can only be accelerated by this so-called emerging vision for the tough times, 1990s, of MNR.

Ministry staff are reaching the point where they are unable to perform their responsibilities effectively in providing services to the public of Ontario. This new vision is a nightmare for both the permanent and casual employees: they must do more with less. The ministry is becoming a skeleton staff attempting to audit all the programs that have been handed over to the private sector.

MNR has three alternatives for trying to get the job done: contracting out even more of the work to the private sector, using special employment programs and volunteers or making further cuts to management programs and services to the public. This is no way for our natural resources to be treated by this government. The morale in the ministry is terrible and it is getting worse. It is time for the minister to get a hold of his ministry and end the tough times for Natural Resources.

TIRE TAX

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of this House my concern about one small item announced by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in his budget yesterday, a $5 tax that will be charged on the purchase of each new tire. This is not only a very regressive tax, but indeed a measure which could very well impact on the safety of cars on our highways.

As usual, for the wealthy and affluent people this $5 levy will be of little or no consequence, but for the senior citizens, the young and the low-income people of our province it will be of considerable concern. These are the people who will again be called upon to shoulder this added burden and, in having to do so, may justifiably be tempted to postpone the purchase of new tires for economic reasons, thereby jeopardizing their own safety and the safety of the motoring public, which is already one of our major problems.

Surely for safety’s sake alone the government should be encouraging car owners to make certain that their cars are fitted with the safest tires possible. This tax will discourage car owners from replacing their worn tires and more motorists will be driving with unsafe tires.

Also, this Liberal government is levying tax on tax in this tax initiative. The $5 tax will be added to the price of the tire and then eight per cent provincial sales tax will be added on: the $5 then becomes $5.40. Tax on tax -- the Treasurer should be ashamed of his devious tax policies.

SAINTE-MARIE AMONG THE HURONS

Mr Black: I rise today, on behalf of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil), to draw to the attention of the House a milestone in Canadian history, the 350th anniversary of the founding of Sainte-Marie among the Hurons in what is now Midland in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Tomorrow, the Premier (Mr Peterson) and other distinguished guests will take

part in the opening of anniversary celebrations. At this launch, a representative of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada will also dedicate Sainte-Marie as a national historic site.

Sainte-Marie was founded in 1639 as a French Jesuit mission, in the 30 years that followed, the priests and their lay helpers lived and worked among the native Huron population of the land we now call Ontario.

During that decade the mission was the largest European community in the interior of North America. When Father Jérôme Lalemant founded Sainte-Marie, he saw it as a place where natives and newcomers could live in harmony, sharing their skills for the benefit of all.

The snowshoe and the canoe, which are still useful today, are just two examples of the native technology that enabled Europeans to survive in the new world. Three and a half centuries later, the ideal of forging a community from many cultures is still held high in our province.

We recognize it quite rightly as the birthplace of Franco-Ontario and on behalf of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and all of us from Huronia, I invite all the members and their families to come to Sainte-Marie in the months ahead to share in the celebrations of the 350th anniversary.

PROPOSED BUILDING SITE

Mrs Grier: Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) appeared somewhat irritated when I asked him why he had refused to designate an area of Etobicoke’s waterfront under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The area in question is 40 acres between the Humber River and the Mimico Creek. Much of the land is vacant and was created by illegal lake filling in the 1960s. There are also a dozen old motels and a couple of taverns.

Camrost Developments Ltd wishes to build Harbourfront West there with condominiums and commercial space. The city of Etobicoke supports Camrost and so apparently does the government of Ontario, which is only natural because Camrost supports the government.

What concerns environmentalists is that the minister has refused to designate a project which will involve massive amounts of lake filling. This lake fill will be placed in an area where sediments are already highly contaminated. According to the city’s plan, the lake fill will be used to create public access to the waterfront and public parks.

The minister in effect is exempting a public project from the Environmental Assessment Act. Instead, he has asked for an environmental management master plan. No one knows what that is. There are no criteria, no

definitions, no guidelines and, more important, no public hearings, no public participation in a study to determine the extent of public amenities on a contaminated area on Lake Ontario’s shoreline. It is a sad day for the environment, for open government and for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: We need to rename the transportation capital program announced in yesterday’s budget. A more appropriate title should be tax the travelling consumer program.

This government obviously felt that travelling in and around the greater Toronto area was not being taxed enough, so it decided to levy a gasoline tax, a tire tax, a licence tax and a parking tax. Such an unfair burden on the greater Toronto area is unconscionable.

When will this government realize that the roads and transit systems in the greater Toronto area are the transportation hub of Ontario? When will they realize that transportation is a core government service?

Yes, we need money and systems in place, but we need more than money; we need a vision. We need a long-term plan that outlines where this province is headed. We need some indication of the future of transportation in Ontario.

This wait and see attitude is a travelling time bomb. Wait and see if the Olympics come. Wait and see if we get Expo. The people of this province, especially in the greater Toronto area, deserve more than to be held hostage to special events and they deserve more than being victim in taxing our troubles away.

It is a sham. We have to do something but right now this government is just playing with our money and not delivering the services we need to get around in this city.

GREEK-CANADIAN CULTURAL MONTH

Mr Faubert: I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Greek community in Toronto is celebrating Greek-Canadian Cultural Month during the month of May.

The energy and enthusiasm of the Hellenic Canadian Congress in bringing this festival to life is to be commended, and many events have been sponsored by the Ministry of Culture -- Greece, the General Secretariat for Greeks Abroad, the Consulate General of Greece for Toronto, the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto and the Greek-Canadian Associations of Ontario.

The Greek-Canadian community is an active and vital part of the multicultural community in Ontario. The multiculturalism strategy in Ontario says that we celebrate cultural diversity, that we support cultural retention for those who choose it and cultural sharing for all.

Events such as Greek-Canadian Cultural Month are a true reflection of this policy at work. Since the beginning of the month, Greek entertainers have been performing in several Ontario cities including Toronto, Hamilton and London. There have been traditional Greek dramas and dancing. Just yesterday afternoon, the Aristotelis Dance Group from the city of Florina, Greece, was entertaining here in the Legislative Building. This weekend, the festivities will spread to Ottawa, where the Hellenic Canadian Congress will be meeting in convention.

I urge all members to participate as fully as possible in Greek-Canadian Cultural Month and commend its observance to all peoples of Ontario. In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of all members of this House the presence of the consul general of Greece, consul Vasilis Moutsoglov, who is seated in the members’ gallery.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Philip: Not only is the Liberal government creating increased problems for injured workers through its insistence on the passage of Bill 162, but it is failing miserably to provide adequate community legal services for those injured workers wishing assistance in fighting for their rights under the present act. At the present time, the community information legal service office in Rexdale, with a case load of over 330 cases, has been told that it will have an increase in funding of less than the rate of inflation.

The situation is also complicated in other legal clinics, with cutbacks under the Ontario legal aid plan resulting in legal aid clinics such as the Kensington, Bellwoods, Parkdale and Kingston legal aid services having to reduce the number of law student case workers normally hired during the summer in an effort to deal with the backlog.

Hon Mrs Wilson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I rise today to announce the appointment of JoAnne Fillimore as the new chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

Mr Wildman: Why didn’t you do that as a ministerial statement?

The Speaker: Order. With respect to the member, I would suggest that should be a ministerial statement.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would suggest that my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr

R. F. Johnston) would know what I mean when I say that this is a culmination of 14 years.

It is my privilege to announce today a series of initiatives to reform the social assistance system in this province. In making this announcement, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of all those individuals and organizations who provided their views on the issues and the possibilities for reshaping these essential programs. In particular, I would like to recognize the work of the Social Assistance Review Committee. Their report, Transitions, represents a major contribution to the discussion of public policy, not only here in Ontario but in the rest of Canada as well.

It has become increasingly clear, both in the context of the Social Assistance Review and in the overwhelmingly positive response to its findings, that the people of Ontario share our sense of priority as well as the government’s commitment to comprehensive reform.

My recent consultation on the committee’s report has demonstrated that the concern and desire for reform extends to diverse elements in our communities including business, labour, church groups, the voluntary sector and municipal organizations.

We have paid careful attention to the advice we have received. We have been told that social assistance reform tied to its traditional objective of simply meeting need is insufficient. We have heard that a system that only attempts to meet basic needs is a system that ignores the recipients’ hope to move from dependence to autonomy. We have concluded that a reformed social assistance system must recognize society’s desire to help the recipient, as Transitions puts it, “from exclusion on the margins of society to integration within the mainstream of community life.”

In the recent throne speech, the government announced its intention to reform the social assistance system. In yesterday’s budget, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) allocated $415 million. My purpose today is to provide details of these reforms, which fall into three broad categories: economic independence, benefit adequacy and fairness and simplification.

Under the heading of economic independence, the government has made it clear it is committed to doing a better job of helping social assistance recipients to move into the mainstream. Today, I am announcing a new program initiative, the supports to employment program or STEP. The STEP initiative is comprised of seven separate changes, which will be implemented this fall with a first-year expenditure of $22 million.

The first reform is the removal of what is known as the 120-hour-per-month rule for single parent recipients. In future, single parents will no longer be arbitrarily limited to working only on a part-time basis as a condition for eligibility.

The second element is the adoption of a net definition of earnings under both family benefits and general welfare assistance. Regulation changes will be made to redefine earned income to exclude payroll deductions for Canada pension, unemployment insurance and income tax.

A third change relates to child care expenses. Perhaps the greatest single impediment to single parents working outside the home is the cost of child care. I am implementing changes that will allow single parents to deduct child care expenses, up to a specified limit, from their earned income. This means in effect child care expenses will be an additional deduction allowed in order to arrive at the amount of net earnings.

The fourth

part centres on basic earnings exemptions. Traditionally, our social assistance program has recognized the requirement for a significant basic exemption on earnings, in order to encourage employment while helping to defray typical work expenses. We will be moving to increase the basic exemptions under both the family benefits and general welfare programs.

A fifth aspect of the STEP initiative will also affect the amount of assistance recipients may retain when they have earnings. Currently, all family benefits recipients are subject to a dollar-for-dollar reduction in allowances for each dollar they earn above a basic level of exempted earnings. Changes will be made to the family benefits and general welfare assistance regulations to equalize all exemption rates, so that all recipients retain 20 per cent of net earnings beyond the basic exemption.

The sixth element of STEP will result in reforms to our treatment of training payments. Our treatment of training income frequently fails to provide any financial incentive to sign up for these programs. Therefore, I will be providing enriched exemptions to training income.

The seventh component is one that will alleviate a problem which is familiar to all members of this House. The issue to which I refer is the dilemma faced when an increase in outside income, whether it be from a pension or earnings, reduces recipients’ entitlements to zero. Although they may have sufficient income to get along without social assistance, the loss of their last dollar in social assistance means they also lose their health benefits, such as their drug card.

As part of the STEP initiative, I will be introducing a buffer zone, to enable recipients to retain all their health benefits. This zone continues until their outside income rises to the point where the average recipient is in a position to pay for these benefits himself or herself. I view this as a major breakthrough for low-income persons who, through no fault of their own, are without such coverage today.

Once implemented, the impact of the STEP initiative will be immediate. Some 27,000 social assistance recipients now earn income, usually on a part-time basis. STEP will not only result in significant encouragement to these individuals to increase their earnings, but also enable thousands of others to pursue employment opportunities they could not previously have afforded.

We also have to recognize that many recipients require specific supports in order to access employment opportunities. Accordingly, we will be taking action to expand, consolidate and streamline existing employment support programs. An overall increase of $54 million by year three has been provided for this purpose.

These significant funding increases will take place in co-operation with municipalities and will expand the network of assessment, employment preparation and referral support services for social assistance recipients. Furthermore, participants will be provided with financial assistance to defray their out-of-pocket costs of transportation and child care.

As part of this initiative, we will undertake four to six pilot projects, in co-operation with community agencies, to test a more rationalized approach to the delivery of employment preparation services to disabled persons.

We recognize that social assistance recipients need improved access to the mainstream programs providing skills training and employment experience. This must be done in partnership with the Ministry of Skills Development and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. The Ministry of Skills Development will be provided a further $8 million in literacy training money over the next three years, with social assistance recipients as the key target group.

These measures, totalling $84 million, will increase the economic independence of recipients. They are investments that will lead to significant returns for individual recipients, and ultimately, society as a whole.

Under the heading “Adequacy of Benefits,” I would like now to turn to the second major plank of Ontario’s social assistance reforms, namely benefit adequacy. The government recognizes that poverty is correlated with poor health and lower educational achievement. Many of these problems can be traced to the simple fact that persons receiving social assistance do not have sufficient funds to make ends meet. Particularly hard hit are those who have very high shelter costs.

In addition to the general rate increase announced by the Treasurer in yesterday’s budget, I am announcing two further areas of improvement: (1) reform of shelter benefits, and (2) children’s benefits increases.

The current manner in which the system reimburses shelter costs is both inadequate and complex. It requires recipients to take money from the food and clothing portion of their allowance in order to pay the rent. Accordingly, a complete redesign and new funding are the only possible solutions.

The changes we will make will result in a new and simpler social assistance allowance structure with only two major components, a component for basic needs such as food and clothing and a separate shelter component that pays 100 per cent of the cost of shelter up to a specified limit.

New provincial funding of $119 million will be required for this initiative, which will help an estimated 225,000 adult social assistance recipients and 175,000 children. Those with higher rents will benefit more. For example, a single parent with two young children paying rent of $600 per month will receive an additional increase of $133 per month. This shelter initiative is in addition to $20 million of shelter improvements effective last September.

The high cost of shelter has been cited as the major reason some people have to turn to food banks. I expect today’s improvements to have a real impact on the use of food bank services.

Over 40 per cent of the people in receipt of social assistance are children. Child poverty is a distressing and challenging social issue. Many of the initiatives I have already announced today will assist children in families receiving social assistance, but more direct help is needed. Therefore, I am announcing an infusion of $54 million in funding to increase the children’s portion of the allowances in our social assistance programs.

These funds are intended to achieve three basic objectives: fairer recognition of the cost of raising children of various ages, a simpler rate structure, and equalizing benefits paid to children on general welfare to those paid to children on family benefits.

Accordingly, two new age categories will be established, 12 and under and 13-plus, at a cost of $34.4 million. The amounts paid for the second child in the family will also become the amounts paid for any subsequent children, at a cost of $5.8 million. Finally, general welfare rates for children will be raised to the FBA level, at a cost of $14 million.

Moving on to “Fairness and Simplicity,” the SARC report identified two problems that recipients and administrators have known for some time: that there are inequities in the system, which is overly complex. It is now time to begin to redress them.

A total of $18 million is being set aside for this purpose. With this fund, we plan to make a number of improvements.

By way of example, we will be raising the level of benefits paid to men aged 60 to 64 to the level paid to women of that same age. We will raise allowances for elderly people who do not now qualify for old age security. We will be making changes to the treatment of farm income so that it is put on the same footing as small business income. We will be pilot-testing the direct deposit of social assistance payments into recipients’ bank accounts.

As noted at the outset, the combined total of today’s initiatives is $415 million on an annualized basis. It represents not only a major reform of the welfare system in Ontario; it is an investment in people. Furthermore, we intend to ensure that we can demonstrate the value of this investment.

To that end, we will establish an evaluation framework for measuring the effectiveness of the reforms we are undertaking. We are particularly interested in the rate at which recipients are able to take up and retain employment as well as the response of the business sector to hire more recipients.

The overall impact of these improvements will be of particular benefit to families with children. For example, a single parent with two children will see increases of up to 17 per cent. I might add that a family with two parents and two children will see an increase of up to 20 per cent. In addition, basic allowances will be increased further, by six per cent, on 1 January. We have created financial incentives to work and enhanced employment support services. We have taken specific steps to improve fairness and equity.

With the reforms announced today as a foundation, we will begin the task of moving towards new legislation that will consolidate the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act. We must also address the question of provincial-municipal cost-sharing and decisions regarding delivery. The Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee is considering the recommendations of the Transitions report in its deliberations on the delivery and funding of all social services. Given the critical nature of these issues, the report of that committee will be an important basis for discussion and consultation with municipalities on the future delivery system in Ontario.

We also intend to pursue with the federal government those issues that will require discussion at the national level, in that they affect the broad income security programs of the country as a whole.

If my colleagues will permit, I would like to take a minute to give special thanks to a few people. I want to say a special thanks to the member for Scarborough West for having been there at the beginning and helping to plant the seed. I want to say thank you to the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) for the significant work he has done to encourage public support. I want to say thank you to the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) who has insisted from the beginning that a good evaluation component be built into that plan, and it is.

I want to say thank you to a group of people who made an important announcement, I would suggest, at the right time. I am referring to Art Eggleton, the mayor of Toronto; Conrad Black; and Robin Korthals, the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

I want to say thank you to the staff of my office and the staff of my ministry. I want to say thank you to my caucus, which backed me all the way and I want to say a special thanks to the Treasurer, who as many members know, challenged me all along the way to do this right. Finally, I want to say thank you to the Premier (Mr Peterson), who never gave up.

Hon Mr Conway: I want to inform my colleagues that because of the length of this statement, I am sure the next statement is going to require a little more than one minute and 35 seconds. Also, I would like to provide a bit of time for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson) to make a short introduction. So I would like there to be an extension. Of course, I am quite prepared to afford the opposition additional time in their responses as well, obviously.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for what length of time?

Hon Mr Conway: We probably would need an extension of four to five minutes on this side and if the opposition requires an additional five or eight minutes for its combined responses, so be it.

Mr Harris: I am quite prepared to give the amount of time required and would suggest opposition parties be given the same.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Hon Mr Ward: Today, I am providing details of a plan to ensure greater fairness and equity in the distribution of local and provincial education revenues between Ontario’s public boards of education and Roman Catholic separate school boards.

With the extension of funding to the senior separate school grades, a change endorsed by al