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

May 4, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAYWORKS ’89

KATHY HARVEY

SENIORS’ INFORMATION DAY

HOME CARE

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

ERNEST C. DRURY

ANNUAL ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

BUDGET

RESPONSES

BUDGET

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOME CARE

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

PENSION FUNDS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

RENT REGULATION

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ORILLIA SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

YOUTH GANGS

RAIL SERVICES

INSURANCE COMPANY BANKRUPTCY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

RECYCLING

WATER RESOURCES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAYWORKS ’89

Miss Martel: As Culture and Communications critic for the New Democratic Party, it is my pleasure again this year to remind members, if they have not already noticed, that the Mayworks Festival is taking place in Metropolitan Toronto this week. The Mayworks Festival is holding its fourth annual festival and is sponsored by the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York region.

Mayworks is a multimedia event which takes place in several locations in and around the city. Mayworks ‘89 is a salute to the creativity of working people and the social role of progressive artists. It is a time of celebration and positive creative expression featuring art and photographic exhibits, concerts, workshops, videos, theatrical performances and readings.

Mayworks ‘89 is centred on May Day and runs to 6 May. As a part of this year’s Music in the Workplace program, the Ruth Budd Quintet will bring a program of classical music to the Legislative Building on Friday, 5 May at 11:30 am. I invite and urge all members who are in the building, and staff as well, to attend and enjoy this musical event.

Congratulations to Mayworks and to all the talented and devoted people who have organized this festival. Best wishes for a most successful festival.

KATHY HARVEY

Mrs Marland: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and congratulate Kathy Harvey, Mississauga’s Multiple Sclerosis Person of the Year for 1989. Kathy was diagnosed with MS 23 years ago and became disabled in 1973. In spite of her disability, Kathy has demonstrated great courage and depth of character. Kathy has always been a wonderful mother and encouraging motivator to her son, Cameron, and daughter, Erin.

Kathy has established herself as an excellent painter, with her art appearing on MS Christmas cards and MS society notepaper. She is a compassionate and caring person with many supportive and admiring friends. Cameron has also been another achiever in the family and reached a pinnacle in 1986 when he became a world-class athlete and won the bronze medal in rowing at the World Rowing Championships in Nottingham, England.

In recognition of her determination and achievements, a presentation to Kathy Harvey was made last evening at the Toronto Blue Jays game at Exhibition Stadium. Best wishes, Kathy. You are a very special woman and mother. Thank you for being an inspiration to us all, and we all share with you the pride in your family’ s achievements.

SENIORS’ INFORMATION DAY

Mr Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to advise the honourable members of this House of a very special event which will be taking place in my riding of St Catharines-Brock on Wednesday, 10 May. That is the eighth annual Seniors’ Information Day at the Queen Elizabeth Centre in St Catharines.

The event, which is sponsored by Senior Citizens’ Consultants, is an information-sharing day. Last year, 54 agencies were represented, ranging from health organizations to any organization that offers some type of service to seniors, attracting people from all over the city. The turnout last year was 1,600-plus and the organizers are expecting a larger crowd this year.

The St Catharines Transit Commission will offer free bus rides for seniors all day in order to facilitate their travel to and from the centre. Furthermore, Maclean Hunter Cable 10 will be present to film the activities, which will be reported on our community television.

The head of Senior Citizens’ Consultants, Dulcie Pink, and her husband, Ernest, along with numerous other volunteers, have worked tirelessly on putting together this event. It is a shining example of our community’s commitment to a better quality of life for our seniors. I ask that my colleagues join with me in applauding their efforts and wishing them the most successful information day to date.

HOME CARE

Mr Reville: Tomorrow this government will have one of many opportunities to put its money where its mouth has been. Tomorrow the representative of the Victorian Order of Nurses will be meeting with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan). The VON will be asking for three things: for the government to pick up its $2.5-million deficit for the year ending 31 March 1989, to increase its per visit fee by about seven per cent and to institute a process whereby the VON can have some more flexibility in dealing with government as costs change and as the needs of its patients change.

As I understand it, the government has offered to pick up part of the deficit and to increase the per visit fee by about five per cent. That will not meet the needs of the Victorian Order of Nurses, and the Ministry of Health should know that because it has been advised about the order’s needs since October 1988. If the government fails to respond to the reasonable demands of the VON, I think we can put down the budget speech as one of those tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: I am rising in the House today -- and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) is in attendance -- to talk about the issue of northern health travel grants for the constituents of Parry Sound riding.

I thought quite seriously that we had put this issue to bed on 9 June 1988 when the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) rose in his place in the House and announced that, effective 1 April 1989, all residents of the riding of Parry Sound, all residents of the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing would be part of northern Ontario for the purposes of all programs administered by all ministries in the government.

There are no exceptions in those words. I think the intent is quite clear and I think the spirit is quite clear. The only ministry to date that has reneged on that commitment is the Ministry of Health with respect to its northern health travel grants program.

The definition of northern Ontario defines the territorial districts in northern Ontario that qualify for the northern health travel grants program. It is interesting to note that the district of Parry Sound is excluded in the current definition, as is indeed a great portion of the district of Nipissing.

If the Minister of Health intends to live up to the spirit and intent of this move, which I think is a well-needed one, and I think everybody in this House twice unanimously agreed to that, she will move those boundaries and move the distances appropriately so that all residents of Parry Sound and Nipissing are treated equally.

ERNEST C. DRURY

Mr Elliot: On 4 June 1989, the late Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Ernest C. Drury, will be inducted into the Ontario Agriculture Hall of Fame at the Ontario Agricultural Museum in Milton.

Known as the Farmer Premier, E. C. Drury has several connections with my riding of Halton North and specifically the town of Milton. A Milton high school, the E. C. Drury Secondary School, ensures that his name is still prominent locally.

After running unsuccessfully as an independent Liberal Conservative for the riding of North Simcoe in 1917, Drury was chosen as the leader of the elected farm members after the 1919 general election in Ontario.

When Premier Hearst resigned, Drury was asked to form a government under the banner of the United Farmers of Ontario. In 1920, Premier Drury won a by-election in what was then called the county of Halton. He served as the Premier of this province and the member for Halton until the fall of his government in May 1923.

A graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College, the Honourable E. C. Drury was an advocate of progressive farming techniques and a supporter of better agricultural education and co-operative action.

When the Honourable E. C. Drury passed away in 1968, the province lost a staunch supporter of the family farm and the whole agricultural sector.

He is a worthy inductee into the Agriculture Hall of Fame.

ANNUAL ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr McLean: My statement concerns the perch festival in Orillia that wraps up its eighth successful year this Sunday.

More than 10,000 anglers, young and old, male and female, were expected to converge on Orillia this year to test their fishing abilities in the waters of Lake Simcoe and Lake Couchiching. These avid anglers are vying for 72 of the $1,000-tagged perch provided by business people in the district, plus a boat and motor and daily prizes for the largest perch reeled in each day.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of this year’s Annual Orillia Perch Festival and to invite all members here today to come up to Orillia this weekend and do battle with the mighty fighting perch, one of the finest pan fish in the province.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

BUDGET

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1989 budget to the Legislature on Wednesday, 17 May at four o’clock in the afternoon, with your permission.

The Speaker: I will now call for responses to that lengthy statement.

RESPONSES

BUDGET

Mr Laughren: I appreciate the fact that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) sent to us four pages in a brown envelope to make sure that his announcement was appropriately packaged.

It is not lost upon us either that on the day he chooses to make the announcement of his budget date he comes in wearing a blue tie. Every other day --

Hon Mr Conway: Yours is a lot bluer.

Mr Laughren: I am not announcing the date of the budget. We can only expect that what the Treasurer has in store for the people of Ontario is reflected in the colour of his tie.

I would say that it is about time we got to the provincial budget. We expect certain things in that budget, particularly given what the federal government has done with its budget. We also expect that we will be able to tell the difference between a Liberal budget and a Conservative budget on 17 May.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done in this province concerning the fairness of our tax system and the day has come when, surely to goodness, this Treasurer does not simply have to reflect the actions of the federal government and its draconian tax regime. There is an opportunity for this province to move in a different direction, and we will be looking forward to that on 17 May.

Mr Brandt: I want to respond very briefly on behalf of our party to the Treasurer’s very interesting announcement of today. We are looking forward as well to the budget announcement.

I would like to just advise the Treasurer that I had the opportunity earlier today to meet with municipal leaders, as I did about a week ago, and they will be very interested in the announcements contained in the Treasurer’s budget to see if they are treated equally as well in the transfer grant program from the Treasurer to the local municipalities as in fact the province was treated by what some have referred to as draconian transfers from the federal to the provincial level.

It is interesting to note that there has been a slowdown in the provincial transfer program, which we fully acknowledge on this side of the House. There has been some reduction, but not a complete elimination of the transfer program. In the last budget the Treasurer had the audacity, I might add, to give the municipalities absolutely a zero transfer in terms of the unconditional grant program. They are extremely angry about that.

Hon R. F. Nixon: You call $600 million zero?

Mr Brandt: The Treasurer knows full well that there was no increase whatever in the road subsidy program in transportation; there was no increase in the unconditional grant program, and that program results in a loss to municipal governments of hundreds of millions of dollars.

When the budget is announced, we will be looking for things like an equitable treatment of our school boards, of our municipalities and of the agencies and associations that this government has a responsibility to provide for in a financial sense. They make up many of the rules upon which these particular bodies are governed. They establish the standards. They establish what has to be done at the local levels by many of these boards and agencies, and yet they do not provide even a modest grant increase to take care of some of those programs.

We will sit here in anticipation on this side of the House awaiting the Treasurer’s good word, because I know deep in his heart of hearts he is a fair man and I know he will treat those municipalities fairly. If he does not, he will hear word from this side of the House as to our anger at the Treasurer giving the backhand to the municipalities for still another year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer. It relates very directly to the weighty announcement that he made today about the timing of the budget.

I am sure the Treasurer will know that the Department of National Revenue publishes very extensive data on who pays tax and who does not. The latest year for which they have any information is 1986. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us how he feels about this interesting titbit from Revenue Canada, and that is that all of the people who made over $250,000 in 1986 and paid not a cent to either the federal government or the Ontario government in income tax -- 40 of them, making over a quarter of a million dollars each and they did not pay a nickel in tax -- are resident in Ontario.

I think the member is aware, however, that the base upon which the provincial personal income tax is levied is a wholly federal base. We simply levy our tax as a percentage of federal tax payable. It might occur to the honourable member that if he really wants fairness and equity, he is in the wrong jurisdiction asking that question.

Mr B. Rae: The person who is in the wrong jurisdiction is the Treasurer. He has the jurisdiction, if he wants, to levy what income taxes he wants and chooses to levy on the residents of this province. He knows it and everybody in this House knows it. The fact he is choosing to let 40 people make over $250,000 and not pay a cent of tax is as much his responsibility under the laws of this country as it is Michael Wilson’s. It is time he woke up and smelt the coffee when it comes to widespread tax avoidance in this province, as a result of tax rules for which he shares jurisdiction with the federal Minister of Finance.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: At the same time as those people are not paying income tax, it might be of interest to the Treasurer to know that in 1986, 722,000 people making less than $10,000 in fact paid income tax to the government of Ontario. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us, why are three quarters of a million people making less than $10,000 having to pay income tax when there are 40 people making over $250,000 who are not paying a nickel?

If he is indicating it is the position of the New Democratic Party that we ought to renounce that historic agreement, go to the expense of hiring our own tax collection authorities, provide our own facilities and provide the residents of Ontario with an entirely separate personal income tax machine, then perhaps he might as well say so, because it is an interesting alternative that has even occurred to me from time to time. Perhaps he might clarify that in his second supplementary.

Mr B. Rae: If the Treasurer is asking me for my opinion, I am saying very directly to the Treasurer that if the federal government is not prepared to have an income tax system that is fair, then it is time Ontario did have an income tax system that is fair. That is the issue before us. It will be no surprise to the Treasurer, but it is of interest, that well over 60 per cent of the tax-free loophole artists who are not paying any tax are men, and that well over 60 per cent of the people who are living well below the poverty line and who have to pay tax, when they should not have to pay any tax, are women.

My specific question for the Treasurer is this: The income tax system, as it is, is discriminatory between rich and poor, and it is discriminatory between men and women. I say to the Treasurer, if he is saying about the sales tax nationally that he does not want to get in with it because it is not fair, why does he not have a direct look at the tax agreement between Ottawa, the federal government, and the provincial government and say that Ontario is determined to have an income tax system that is fair?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, who follows events in this House very carefully, will know that we have made use of the flexibility that is available to us under the federal-provincial agreement to put a specially higher tax, a 10 per cent surtax, on incomes above $80,000. I would surmise that the honourable member asking the question is one of the few members in the House who might possibly be fairly close to that limit, knowing his silver spoon antecedents.

Mr Breaugh: Robert, it’s sticking to the shovel today; be careful.

Mr Mackenzie: Your neck is starting to swell.

Interjections.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Oh, that is unacceptable, right?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. Advocate General is a Winnipeg-based insurance company with most of its business right here in Ontario. Most of that business is some 40,000 insured persons being covered for their automobile insurance policies. It is a federally registered company and it was the subject of a federal windup order on 24 April because of insolvency.

Thousands of insureds in Ontario are now told that they have no insurance and that the 12-month premiums they paid two months ago, three months ago, four months ago or whenever will not be refunded, at least not for years and probably never. What did the minister’s superintendent of insurance do to protect these thousands of insureds and drivers in Ontario from being ripped off for what may well be millions of dollars in premiums?

Hon Mr Elston: The matter of Advocate General is now in front of the courts in Manitoba. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the federal authorities have moved to deal with the issues they are best able to; that is the solvency questions with respect to the company. The superintendent of insurance in Ontario obviously, in terms of making it known there was no ability to write insurance, has taken that step. Obviously, that is in line with the responsibilities under the current situation.

Mr Kormos: I am told the ministry and the provincial superintendent of insurance did not utilize any of their jurisdiction, that they merely followed the federal government and the federal government’s order. I am told that their involvement was merely to keep track of what the federal government is doing and that they have not even examined the work done by the federal government, even though they knew the federal government was commencing its examination towards the latter part of 1988. This does not seem to coincide with the statement of goals of the ministry, which are to ensure that insurance is available and that insurers are financially capable of paying claims of policyholders.

How can the minister justify the failure of the superintendent of insurance to utilize jurisdiction under the Insurance Act?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is probably aware, because of his legal background, that there are certain jurisdictional issues that have to be met. There is jurisdiction in the federal government, particularly after court cases in the 1930s that establish federal occupation in the area of trade and commerce.

We have generally, as a result of that, maintained a very high vigilance in the area of product sales, distribution and things like that, but generally the financial affairs of a federally regulated, federally incorporated company have stayed with the federal people. That is the manner in which the proceedings were taken with respect to Advocate General.

Mr B. Rae: When all the legal falderal is said and done, Emelia Perry is a constituent of mine who contacted my office this week. She is one of the 40,000 people in this province who has a car insurance policy with Advocate General. She paid them $1,800 just a couple of months ago. Her insurance will no longer be valid if in fact Advocate General loses its licence. Her money is with Advocate General and it will take months and years before she sees any of it back. In fact, she may never see any of it back if the company is wound up and found to be insolvent.

I want to ask the minister what he is going to do on behalf of Emelia Perry when it comes to getting her $1,800 back from an insurance company that is not able to meet its obligations. He has been asleep at the switch, his people have been asleep at the switch, and along with 40,000 other people she is without any car insurance.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is not correct when he says we have been asleep at the switch. He knows he is wrong and he cannot say that. I appreciate the difficulty with which his constituent is faced; I appreciate that very fully. Have him send the material over to me and I will look into the details of the situation for him, but he cannot say what he just said about the regulators in this situation.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I will be pleased to look at the situation personally, but he knows as well as I do that when matters of windup and other things are involved, there are people who are appointed by the courts to deal with it in a legal fashion. Sometimes there are difficulties that cannot be overcome. However, if there is an amount of money that is available for distribution, then each of the insureds, each of the creditors of the company, will receive a proportional share in terms of the distribution.

In this situation of a federally incorporated insurance company, federally regulated for solvency, the federal authorities have taken the lead. I ask the honourable gentleman to send me the material so I can look into it further for him.

HOME CARE

Mr Eves: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. I have her glossy booklet here, Deciding the Future of Our Health Care. On page 2 it says, “Our objective is, of course, to keep people healthy -- out of institutions and in their own communities as much as possible.” Going on a little bit farther: “Home care is often a preferred alternative for seniors who would otherwise be in long-term care beds in hospitals or nursing homes. In 1987, chronic care patients accounted for over 25 per cent of total hospital patient days.

We are examining the use of our institutional chronic care, now taking up thousands of more costly acute care beds. We believe it is time to re-evaluate our approach to long-term care....”

The Victorian Order of Nurses wrote to the minister in October 1988 to bring to her attention that the base funding for its organization does not reflect the complexity and changing nature of the services provided by visiting nurses, which her own ministry wants them to do more and more of, to assume more and more share of the load.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: The minister has been aware of the VON funding problems for at least over half a year, since October 1988, yet she has apparently ignored them.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: The minister is now talking about an 11th hour rescue. Does she not realize that an 11th hour rescue of the deficit does not really solve the fundamental problem, which is the base funding the VON receives?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite will know of our commitment not only to expand, but to develop the kind of home care and community-based alternatives that will allow people to live independently in their communities for as long as possible and will provide services to them in the most convenient way. He will know we have been reviewing how we provide those services.

The financial difficulties that have been determined by the Victorian Order of Nurses, which provides an important service in this problem, are part of that ongoing review. He knows, as well, that I will be meeting with them tomorrow. I believe that by working together with them, we should be able to resolve the existing financial difficulties.

Mr Eves: The minister is asking the VON to do more and more, yet she refuses to provide it with the necessary dollars it needs to assume more and more of the burden of the health care system. The reason the VON has a deficit is that the base funding is inadequate and the minister has refused to address that issue. There is an ageing population, which she acknowledges. It calls for more intensive home care, which she says she is going to do.

More time has to be spent with each patient. For every extra minute of added time to the average length of visit a visiting nurse gives, it costs the VON $1 million a year; that is, every time the average visit goes up by one minute. Yet without negotiation, consultation or meeting with the VON, the Ministry of Health unilaterally imposed a 1988-89 funding formula that does not reflect the current cost of its nursing service.

How can the minister stand in her place and say she is meeting with them tomorrow, that she is adopting a consultative, co-operative approach to government? They say, and they have said it in black and white, that the ministry unilaterally imposed this funding formula without any consultation or negotiation. Is she saying they are wrong?

Hon Mrs Caplan: For the information of the member opposite, there are some 38 home care programs across the province. I am quite proud of the fact that between 1985-86 and 1987-88, there has been a 60 per cent increase in the funding for home care in this province. We are now funding home care at a rate of $245 million annually. Of course, there is much we still have to do, and we are working with the VON and the other providers of home care to see how they can provide their services in the most efficient manner.

Mr Eves: The minister makes note of the fact that she is meeting with the VON tomorrow, which is true. It is also interesting to note that the first the VON heard about this, despite the fact it had requested the meeting by letter of 10 January, was after the Premier (Mr Peterson) responded to a question I asked in the House on Monday. All of a sudden, the phone lines started to burn between the Ministry of Health and the VON.

I want to quote from the letter to the Minister of Health on 10 January 1989, “It is our belief that the 4.5 per cent increase neither recognizes VON’s record of responsible fiscal management nor accommodates the true cost increases which we are experiencing, many of which reflect external factors beyond our control.” They go on to say they are presently projecting, this year, an operating deficit of at least $2 million for the 1988-89 fiscal year.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: “Given the magnitude and seriousness of the situation, the board of directors, VON, has asked me to request an urgent meeting with you in order that they can review our present circumstances and investigate possible resolution.”

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: Is the minister’s response to a co-operative, consultative approach to give them a meeting this Friday after the Premier makes the commitment for her Monday in the House when she was not here and then her ministry --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is the member for Parry Sound finished?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows full well, ministry officials have been meeting with the VON and other providers of home care services over the course of months to attempt to resolve difficulties. I can say to him that we will be meeting tomorrow, as we do with a number of groups on an ongoing basis, to try to resolve some of the structural and financial difficulties as we work together co-operatively in this province. I ask him to support those initiatives.

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Earlier this week, I had a discussion with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) and he indicated to me that very shortly he would be making some announcements with respect to changes in Ontario’s liquor laws. I have had some concern expressed to my office in the past few days that one of those recommendations that is going to be adopted by this government is the proposal called “bring your own booze” in the so-called Offer report, which would allow patrons to take bottles of wine into restaurants in the province.

Can the Premier assure the people of this province that he is not going to support that recommendation and that we will not see that implemented?

Hon Mr Peterson: I can assure the member that I will take his concerns to the minister, and at the appropriate time he will bring his views forward to this House and the member can discuss them with him.

Mr Runciman: I think most of the people in this House, and certainly across the province, would be interested in hearing the Premier’s views with respect to this issue. There are a number of other changes as well that are proposed by the Offer report, which apparently are going to be announced in the next couple of weeks.

Another one is the extension of drinking hours. We have talked to a group called PRIDE, People To Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, and they have expressed a great deal of concern about that particular proposal. I quote John Bates of PRIDE, “If you’re drunk at one o’clock, you’ll be drunker at two o’clock.” He has also expressed concern that with subways and transit systems shutting down at one o’clock, such an extension of drinking hours would force more people to drive in an impaired condition.

Does the Premier wish to comment on that proposal, and as well on the BYOB proposal?

Hon Mr Peterson: No, I do not.

Mr Runciman: The Premier did not mind a couple of weeks ago when he was asked about casinos in Ontario. He said he was not supportive of casinos because they did not lead to a good lifestyle, but today he is unwilling to comment on people wandering around the streets with bottles of wine or on extended drinking hours.

It is truly bizarre that at the same time this government is spending close to $3 billion on health care costs related to alcohol abuse, thousands of dollars on advertising to promote good lifestyles and more than $550 million on law enforcement related to alcohol problems, the Premier of this province does not even want to comment on the proposals that are going to be before his cabinet in a week or two, announcements that are forthcoming.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Runciman: Why does he not open up to this House and the people of this province and tell us where he stands on these matters?

Hon Mr Peterson: Boy, this keeps getting worse every day, does it not? I thought it had hit bottom yesterday.

Look, I understand the problem. Let me just say that my honourable friend asked me if I would like to comment and the answer was no; but now he has asked me a question that I think is a question I think we will --

Mr Runciman: This is a serious matter to an awful lot of people.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is quite right. We take the views of the honourable member seriously, even if he has different views on the same subject two days in a row. I will certainly take his views to the minister. When the minister brings forward the policy of the government, he will share it with the member and then he can stand in this House and hoot and holler, rant and rail and say whatever he would like.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister will no doubt be aware of the decision that was made yesterday by Mr Justice Sydney Robins regarding the Ontario Hydro pension plan and his ruling that Ontario Hydro could not take a contribution holiday because it has a surplus in its pension.

In particular, Mr Justice Robins said: “I can see no realistic distinction in the treatment of surplus between the corporation giving itself an accounting credit in place of actual payment of its required contribution and the corporation directly withdrawing surplus from the fund. The result is the same in both cases: the fund’s surplus is reduced or eliminated.” Does the minister agree with the ruling and with that statement yesterday?

Hon Mr Elston: I have seen part of the ruling given by Mr Justice Robins. I have not read the entire ruling. What I do understand is that Mr Justice Robins’s decision was based particularly upon the statutory obligations of Hydro, at least from a preliminary review of the matter I have had, and, in fact, there are some questions outstanding in the minds of the parties as to whether there may be appeals taken from it.

With respect to my agreement or disagreement, I can tell the honourable gentleman I have seen it, I know what has been said and I know the matter of appeal is a question that is now being considered by the parties. I think the member is free to put his own turn on the decision of Mr Justice Robins at this point. It is not yet final, as far as I understand.

Mr D. S. Cooke: There is a principle involved in this and the minister knows it. The principle is that pension contributions and pension funds belong to the workers and not to the corporation. If a surplus accrues, then that surplus belongs to the pension fund and the workers. All we are asking in this party, and thousands of employees across this province want to know, does the minister agree with that principle? 1f he agrees with that principle, why does he not put in place the regulations to stop the continued theft of millions of dollars of pension funds by contribution holidays in this province?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman probably knows that, generally speaking, pension obligations are a part of contractual obligations which are worked out and, in fact, a number of decisions with respect to pension surplus have been decided, particularly on the wording of the contracts that surround the pension documents.

I can tell the honourable gentleman he is being much too general in the way he applies his particular analysis of that judgement. It has been, as I have been told from a very preliminary review of it, an indication of the particular bearing of the Power Corporation Act, which of course deals with Hydro.

The principle which the member has enunciated here is dealt with particularly in the text of pension agreements. In that situation, determinations are made and that is how, in fact, the determinations will be made by pension commissions and courts as the matters are dealt with in the years to come.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. His ministry has not faced up to the transportation crisis around Metropolitan Toronto. Metro’s planning people have tabled proof positive how the traffic has become worse in and around the Metro area in the past year. Ontario truckers are calling it a crisis, saying the price of goods will jump by 25 per cent to 50 per cent in the next 10 years.

Since this government took office, the transportation budget for Ontario has steadily decreased. Is the minister following the same trend this year of reducing Ontario’s financial commitment to transportation?

Hon Mr Fulton: As the member has demonstrated previously in this House, he once again has his facts incorrect. The budget of this ministry --

Mr Cousens: What facts do I have incorrect? Will the minister please tell me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. Shouting does not help anything. Does it? Oh.

Hon Mr Fulton: Obviously, the member wants to ask questions but does not want to hear the answers. The member would be very much aware, because of the interest he appears to have in transportation matters --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Cousens: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: He has no right to say that I appear to have; I have.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Many times I have noted in this House that members have risen and expressed a point of view. Not always do all members agree with that point of view. Does the minister have any further response?

Hon Mr Fulton: I will try again. I clearly understand that the member appears to have an interest in matters concerning transportation. He would be aware of the report of the directions we announced last May, and if he would care to listen to the answers, I have 11 pages of accomplishments that have flowed from that announcement of only a year ago, some of them including projects in his riding, I might point out.

I would further point out the inaccuracy of suggesting the budget has in fact decreased. It is simply not the case. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and this government have been very generous with funding of this ministry. Municipal roads have grown by some 36 per cent. I would remind him that in the previous 11 years to this government taking office, his government continuously diminished the budget for this ministry.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal privilege before I bring in my supplementary: As a member of this party, I am asking questions not only from the people of Markham in my riding, but for Liberals, Conservatives and NDP and people in the Metro area and people who are concerned with transportation. I take it as an offence that this minister should think I am not trying to serve all the people of the province, so I have a supplementary for him.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Cousens: I am not taking any more of the Minister of Transportation’s guff; it is just not worth it. He has a job to do and it is arrogance of the worst order.

The Minister of Transportation has lost the battle at cabinet for four years in a row to get increased funding. Metro last year received $1.5 million less than the year before. Congestion is worse this year over last year. What we are seeing is that the percentage of the provincial budget in 1987-88 was 5.5 per cent and in 1988-89 it was down 0.1 per cent to 5.4 percent.

Will the Minister of Transportation commit to this House that the transportation budget will not continue to decrease as a total share of provincial funding?

Hon Mr Fulton: I have said before, I said it today and I will say it again: The amount of funding to this ministry from our Treasurer in this government has grown substantially every year for four years. I suggest if he is reading from today’s newspapers, the source of the information was indeed the deputy minister of this ministry under his government.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In the early 1970s the Minesing Swamp land acquisition program was started. The swamp itself is a 15,000-acre natural wetlands system which lies in the very centre of the county of Simcoe.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority has acquired about 5,000 acres to date under this program; the Ministry of Natural Resources a little over 1,000 acres; the Ministry of Government Services 134 acres; and Simcoe county owns another 380 acres.

I am sure all of us recognize the unique animal and plant life which can be found within the swamp boundaries. My question to the minister is, can he advise us of what the overall plans are for this provincially significant acquisition program? Where are we going; what is contemplated?

Hon Mr Kerrio: A very important initiative by this government that was motivated, in a way, to speed up the inventory of very important and valuable wetlands in the province was undertaken as one of the first initiatives of my ministry when I became minister, and it is a very significant and important one.

The member for Simcoe Centre talks about this particular area. Both my ministry and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority are very much involved in management and acquisition of these lands to protect this very valuable swamp land. Representatives of both sit on a seven-member steering committee which deals with the overall management and acquisition. The objective, of course, is to protect significant wetlands throughout the province.

As the member has described, acquisition has secured a major portion of the swamp. There are two large outstanding tracts left that we are negotiating for right now to put that whole package together. The features are very important to protect -- Mr Speaker, I am sure you would want to hear this final comment that I have to make -- that is, they include provincially significant floristic features, bird species that need to be protected and a significant pickerel spawning area, and everyone in the province enjoys the opportunities that presents.

The Speaker: There may be no need for a supplementary. Oh; okay, supplementary.

Mr Owen: While we are appreciative of what is being done to save the Minesing Swamp itself, there are other wetlands in the province, and from time to time we hear from conservation people who feel that the same programs that we have been experiencing and enjoying in the Simcoe county area should be shared with other parts of the province.

We all realize the importance of wetlands and what they do for our province. Could the minister tell us what is being done of comparable measure across the remaining part of the province compared to the Simcoe county area itself?

Hon Mr Kerrio: I thank the honourable member very much for a very important supplementary. I do feel that not only what we do as a government is important, but having attended last night at a fund-raising for the Brant Waterways Foundation to do good things to renew that waterway, which has a very great significance in and around the areas that the member for Brantford (Mr Neumann) represents, I would say that the acquisition has a very high priority to protect these lands and to continue to put out money with other users.

My ministry, in conjunction with the ministries of the Environment, Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Food, has released a paper on what we feel is an important and significant direction in protecting these very, very valuable resources, as they ultimately prove to be in Ontario.

There is another element that is worth mentioning, and that is, we get involved with a group that raises tremendous sums of money through Ducks Unlimited to protect wetlands, not only in Ontario but right across this continent and deep into the United States of America. There are many interested people doing good things to protect this valuable resource.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning rent review in Ontario. Last November I raised with her a case of the application made at 1749 Victoria Park Avenue in Scarborough, indicating to her that the landlord in his application for a 65 per cent increase had been rather devious in terms of paying attention to the Rental Housing Protection Act and had incurred expenses which appeared questionable at that time. The minister, if I can quote her response, said not to worry. She did not say those words; she said that “there will be no unjustified rent increases.”

The application was for a 65 per cent increase. The actual award made by the board on 13 April 1989 was for 62.29 per cent. Can the minister justify that for us?

Hon Ms Hošek: I thank the member for his continuing interest in rent review. He will know that four out of five of the tenants in this province receive rent increases at or near the guideline and that about three million tenants in the province are protected by rent review.

I think the member chooses not to remember that without the law that we currently have, a significant number of tenants in the province would face rent increases of any magnitude at any time a landlord saw fit to bring them forward. The tenants and the landlords in this province came together and attempted to strike a fair balance in this law, and there is no question that the legislation is a balance which gives benefit both to landlords and to tenants.

Let me give the honourable member an example of the kind of expenses that are calculated into a rent increase. There is a 30-unit building on Heath Street in Toronto, and the repairs in that building, which were considered legitimate in the process, went something like this. The boiler needed to be replaced; that cost $31,000. The plumbing needed to be fixed; that cost $28,000. The aluminum storms and windows needed replacement; that cost $50,000. The kitchen cabinets needed replacing; that cost $35,000. A new roof, $26,000. Removing a wall, $30,000.

Expenses of this sort are involved in maintaining and keeping a building up to a standard and level that are calculated in the rent review increases. That is one example.

Mr Breaugh: I do not know whether that justifies anything to anybody. Let me try this one. In the minister’s riding a woman named Joyce Hall lives in a building at 1065 Eglinton Avenue West. The application there is the world’s record. The landlord has applied for a 195 per cent increase in rent.

Joyce and others who live in that building are fearful, having seen what rent review will do. Can the minister explain to her why she should not now join other tenants in the building who were afraid that the increase will be something in that order and have left the building because they were afraid of what retroactive rents might be charged to them? How do you explain that to her, that this is really nothing more than a form of economic eviction, with her fear that the rent review process, if it does not give the landlord 195 per cent, will be justified in the way the minister has just done, to give him something of that order?

Hon Ms Hošek: It is too soon to know what rent increase will come in that building, but let me remind the member that the system was created to set fair rents. It was not meant necessarily to keep the status quo or to preserve rents that were cheap. It was meant to set fair rents and to keep a balance between very real protection for tenants and recognizing the expenses that are involved in maintaining and fixing a building over time.

I understand the concerns and the fears of people who are facing significant rent increases. The other issue that always has to be on the table at the same time is that unless we have a law which recognizes what it genuinely costs to keep a building and to fix it, we are not going to have the kind of rental housing stock we need in this province for the three million people who are tenants.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. In June 1988 the Lord report was completed and forwarded to the office of the minister. Eight months later, on 27 February 1989, he finally decided to release the report to the public.

My question is, now that the minister has had almost a year to review this scathing report of services for the disabled in Ontario, can he tell the House and the disabled community what changes he plans to implement, and when?

Hon Mr Mancini: I want to thank the member for a very important question on the Lord report. As she has already explained to the House, the report is now public. It has been public for the last couple of months.

The regional offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services now have the report. They are poring over it and may, in fact, have some type of consultation through the regional offices. I have spoken personally to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney). We have discussed the Lord report in detail. There are a number of interesting proposals which have been made, and we wish to consider the matter further.

Mrs Marland: The Lord report says most people are frustrated with receiving their support from two or three different agencies with different regulations. Lack of co-ordination among agencies causes fragmentation and duplication. There is consumer dissatisfaction with the quality and reliability of service provided by outside agencies. There is recognition within many sectors that a more coherent legislative base is needed to support the philosophy and framework for the delivery of support services.

The fact is that we could hire more consultants and we could do more studies and more paperwork, but the minister’s job is not just to produce paper; it is to act upon the advice that he has already called for and in fact paid for. I would like to know what the minister is going do to address this one specific issue of the many issues raised in this report.

Hon Mr Mancini: The report does in fact say everything that the honourable member quoted. I wish to repeat that I have already had consultation with the Minister of Community and Social Services, and we are going to consult further on the matter.

There are a number of important issues that have been described in the Lord report. Disabled persons want to decide for themselves how they should receive some of the services. Right now some of their services or most of their services are delivered through brokers, as the honourable member informed the House, and through agencies.

There is some overlap, but in order to make the serious changes to the system that the honourable member wishes to have made and most of us wish to have made, it does indeed take some amount of time. I want to let the honourable member know that her concern does not go unnoticed and her references today in the House to the Lord report are taken most seriously. As we continue to consult and hopefully work to an end to make very positive changes, she will be one of the first to know.

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We hear about hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies being supplied by European and American taxpayers to their agricultural communities. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food indicate his position on the recent agreement on agriculture in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations?

Hon Mr Riddell: This is an issue that my ministry has been dealing with to come up with a reasonable long-term response. But let me preface my remarks by saying that I certainly do support the long-term goals of trade liberalization and improvements in the rules and discipline of GATT. For many of Ontario’s agriculture and food commodities, reductions in trade-distorting subsidies will assist both our farmers and our food processors.

However, I do find the April agreement to be somewhat unbalanced. At present, there seem to be constraints only on domestic agricultural policies with minimal if any benefit from the freeze on support prices. Moreover, I do not see the need to discipline those commodities which are already supply-controlled.

With this lack of balance and the limited consultation that there has been with the producers and provinces, I along with my provincial colleagues have arranged a meeting with Mr Mazankowski on 12 May because we must clarify the mixed messages that are coming from Ottawa or risk disrupting these segments of our industry.

Mr Tatham: There are over 600 top-quality dairy producers in Oxford county. The minister referred to mixed messages and the role of supply management. Can the minister state his views on the supply management system in the GATT negotiations?

Hon Mr Riddell: The honourable member has raised a very serious concern in Canadian agricultural policy. It seems that many observers have viewed supply management and trade liberalization as incompatible. I do not share this view. I am pleased to note that Canada’s negotiating position emphasizes the difference between our supply management systems and the open-ended, trade-distorting support systems of the United States and the European Community.

Indeed, I re-emphasize my support for effective supply management systems. When my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) and I met with the boards in late April, our comments reassured these commodity groups of the province’s support for orderly marketing. As a matter of fact, after that meeting took place I received a letter from John Core, who was the vice-chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, regarding the outcome of our meeting. I just want to quote what he said, very briefly:

“I appreciated the strong reaffirmation of your government’s support for supply management when we met with you and Mr Kwinter on” --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, the member for Hamilton West.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. At a time when the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the government are trumpeting the slogan “Welfare Cheques into Paycheques,” the social assistance system itself appears to be creating undue hardship for the working poor and forcing them to give up paycheques for welfare cheques.

Sharleen and Claude Girouard, the Ottawa disabled couple whose case the minister knows well, have tried every route, both in and out of the system, in order to get their medical supply costs covered without his having to give up his job and go on family benefits where he could get disability benefits and a drug card. They are unfortunately about to do that.

Does the minister not agree that it would be less costly, as the Social Assistance Review Committee report proposed, simply to provide them and working poor like them with the benefits which would enable them to maintain their employment and self-respect? If he does, why does he not take the simple route and do it?

Hon Mr Sweeney: At the present time, the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) is reviewing the whole operation of who should qualify for assistance under the drug card program strictly from a health, a medical point of view. The member is also well aware of the fact that the Social Assistance Review report is currently in the works.

I would hope that roughly 13 days from now the member might get some information that would be helpful to him, as we certainly are looking at people who are in a transitional stage, who have been on income support and who now are not on income support. The critical issue -- and the member and I have discussed this before -- is that qualification based upon need takes in the financial resources of the entire family. Until we can make some adaptation to that, quite frankly, I am just not in a position to do what he asks.

Mr Allen: We have been through this route before. The minister has claimed that supplementary aid would help, and yet it does not cover the $200 outstanding in their budget at the end of the month that is caused by medical supply costs. The minister has had the option of going the route of an order in council and putting them on a $2.50 allowance which would entitle them to a drug card; he has not done that.

I have not seen anything in the throne speech to date that indicates there is going to be any action with respect to the needs of the working poor, either in terms of minimum wage increases or benefits such as dental benefits, drug card attachment and soon. I would like the minister to stand and tell us whether he is going to be moving in that direction, because that would certainly solve the problem for the Girouards.

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Allen: In the meantime, he has had options to act on this one --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Allen: -- and I wonder why he has not done it.

Hon Mr Sweeney: Let’s remember, as the honourable member well knows and as I have indicated before, that a significant amount of money flows from this ministry through the municipal welfare offices to this particular family, significant numbers of dollars. The decision was made that the difference between what they get through supplementary aid through the local municipality -- and the member knows that the provincial ministry pays 80 per cent of that -- and what is still owing was deemed by that office to be within their capability to pay, given all the other resources available to them.

So let’s not leave the impression that they are not getting assistance for those medical bills. They are getting very, very significant assistance.

ORILLIA SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Health. It is my understanding that the officials from her ministry met the executive director of the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital in late March to review a proposal to build a second campus for acute care and renovate the existing facility for chronic care. This is a proposal she has known about for a long time. This is a proposal that has raised almost $7 million. The fund-raising drive shows the community’s commitment to the project. Will the minister show her commitment by telling the hospital board of directors if construction can begin?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I have no announcement at this time.

Mr McLean: The hospital fund is over the top, and I think it shows a very strong commitment within the community with regard to the funding for that hospital. Some time ago, back in November, I asked the minister very much the same question. It was in March 1988 that she indicated she would have an answer within about two weeks. This is now 1989. When could we look forward to an answer?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, all capital projects have been under review to ensure in fact that we are planning for the future and community needs. He knows as well that we are looking at planning on a regional basis. I would say to him that I have no announcement to make today; however, in future we will be discussing the capital planning process in this Legislature and elsewhere.

YOUTH GANGS

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Solicitor General. Youth gang activity in Metropolitan Toronto has been gaining more attention in the media. It seems that incidents have been reported almost daily, detailing such activities as swarming, shoplifting and assault.

Residents in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere, in which the Scarborough Town Centre is located, have expressed to me their concerns about the problem; some have even indicated their concern about going shopping alone. Indeed, shop owners are speaking about the possibility of lost business. Mothers in Scarborough have formed a group to combat youth gang participation in Scarborough.

Can the minister advise the House what has been done to date and what is currently being done to deal with the problem of youth gangs in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mrs Smith: I think it is very important that we keep in mind that school and police authorities by and large do not consider that most of the young people in Toronto who gather together in our malls are gangs. No one is denying that there are some organized gangs out on the streets of Toronto, Scarborough and the various areas round about; but by and large, in getting together, the groups that form loosely, which often have too much time on their hands and not enough to do, tend to get a group psychology.

A great deal is being done, particularly by the schools in the Metro area and I would say as well by the Metro police force. They have formed special task forces to deal with this and feel they are making very good progress and indeed are getting quite on top of the problem.

Mr Faubert: Last September in this Legislature, I called for a Metro-wide review of gang activity. The problem of youth gangs crosses many jurisdictions. Indeed, the Metropolitan Toronto Police has formed a squad called a youth gang squad. I know they would rather call them posses or swarms or other names, but they are involved in gang activity. As well, we know that any solutions certainly might cross the boundaries of many ministerial jurisdictions if they are recommended.

I understand Metropolitan Toronto council has formed a Metro task force under the community services and housing committee. I would like to address the question to the minister. Would she consider participating in such a task force to ensure that alternatives involving areas of provincial jurisdiction could be adequately addressed?

Hon Mrs Smith: We do participate very closely with Metro in any way that can be useful. We have people attend their meetings and offer assistance to them in whatever ways are appropriate for our ministry to assist. The task forces are being successful.

I have met in my office with social workers who work on the streets with kids and local residents, to get their creative ideas on how we as a ministry might assist the various police forces in working in these areas. We will be happy to work with them. We seek advice from them and from others as to what we can do to assist.

RAIL SERVICES

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development with respect to rail transportation services in northeastern Ontario.

We know that the federal government is cutting back considerably in terms of funding to Via Rail and, at the same time, the minister is currently looking at cutbacks in services to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in terms of its services along the Highway 11 corridor. Currently, the ministry and ONTC are conducting surveys and a series of public hearings in communities in that area of northeastern Ontario with respect to the passenger train services that the province has been funding in that area.

Can the minister, who has never reported on this study or set of hearings to the House itself, tell us what the purpose of it is and what his objective is with respect to rail transportation services for that area of our province?

Hon Mr Fontaine: First of all, I would like to say that the ONTC decided to have this review for many reasons. First of all --

Mr Runciman: Is that a mirror you have in front of you?

Hon Mr Fontaine: No. This is a committee which is composed of northerners. We are looking at that service. I do not know where the member for Sault Ste Marie gets this idea that we want to eliminate the service. That was never mentioned.

Second, I take the train quite often. I do not know if the member ever took that train from Kapuskasing to Toronto. I have used it quite often for many years. I know there are some problems with the service and the way they serve the people too. That is what the committee will do. We are going to discuss with the population of this corridor to see what kind of service and what quality of service is wanted. After that, they will report to me and I will make my report here, and we will decide at that time.

Mr Morin-Strom: The hearings are being set up and held across northeastern Ontario. As has been reported publicly, their objective will be “to consider if cheaper, reduced service could be provided, since existing service is experiencing high cost due to lack of use.”

Currently, the communities in this area are getting twice-a-day rail passenger services. At the same time that Via Rail is threatening to cut back services, can the minister at least give us the assurance that these communities will continue to have twice-a-day services through the services of the ONTC and that in fact the only thing we will see is improved service, not reductions in service to that area of northeastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Fontaine: First of all, I want to remind the member for Sault Ste Marie that we are not Via; we are ONTC. From Kapuskasing to Cochrane, that is Via and then we take over, but Via owns that train.

Second, I cannot speak for Via, but we are asking this committee to look at the situation of passenger service between Kapuskasing and Toronto. At the same time, I want to remind the member that if it takes two hours between Kapuskasing and Cochrane by train, something is wrong. That is what we want to look at. The train goes about 20 miles per hour. That is not my fault. That is the CN’s or Via’s fault. Our track from Cochrane is not that bad. I would like the member to take the train for a while and look at the situation. Maybe he could discuss it more raisonnable. C’est tout.

INSURANCE COMPANY BANKRUPTCY

Mr Runciman: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions, and it has to do with the Guardall bankruptcy. I would like to know a number of things, since I am only going to have one question opportunity here.

In view of the fact that Seymour Ravinsky, the owner of Guardall and Ontario General Insurance Co, declared personal bankruptcy in 1977, I would like to know why this individual was allowed to purchase Ontario General Insurance in the first place; and why Ontario did not order Guardall to stop selling contracts until late March, when it had suspended the insurance company’s licence in early February.

Hon Mr Elston: I will have to look at what the rationale was for allowing Mr Ravinsky to purchase the insurance company. I understand that questions of transactions like that really take a look at the ability of the company to carry on business.

I do know in relation to Guardall that it did not only contract to provide the service through the one insurance company. There are other companies which in fact are involved, and that probably has something to do with the timing.

The issue in its entirety, from a consumer’s point of view and otherwise, is currently being investigated by my colleague the honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) and his ministry, in addition to the work that is ongoing with respect to the insurance company through my division. I will consult with him as well to tell the member as much as I can in one answer.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Kormos: I am rising pursuant to standing order 30(

b) and giving notice that I am not satisfied with the response given to my question by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) and that I intend to raise the subject matter of that question upon adjournment of the House today.

The Speaker: I am sure the member will give written notice as well.

PETITIONS

RECYCLING

Mr Ferraro: Mr Speaker, I am very proud and pleased today to present a petition to you and the House that was organized by a newspaper in the city of Guelph, the Royal Tribune.

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

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

“We want to see Bell Canada encouraged to act immediately so that we can recycle our phone directories.”

It is signed by 1,584 of my constituents, including a group of wonderful kids from Paisley Road School and just about the entire University of Guelph. I have affixed my name to it along with my staff.

WATER RESOURCES

Mr McGuigan: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas the yearly average rainfall in the riding of Essex-Kent is 28 inches, four to six inches short of the optimum for our average temperature and length of frost-free season;

“Whereas the land is very flat and close to the water level of the surrounding rivers and lakes;

“Whereas there is considerable interest on the part of agricultural producers in the practice of supplemental irrigation, therefore,

be it resolved to petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Ontario to investigate the possibility of providing assured water supplies from the municipal drains, rivers and lakes of the area; to identify those areas which could be supplied with assured water supplies; to identify the soils within the supplied areas that could be subirrigated; and to develop legislation that would provide a framework for fairly and assuredly allocating water supplies to the various classes of uses among irrigators;

“Be it further resolved that a body of information be assembled from the various laws governing water usage and be made available in a single source for the use of potential irrigators;

“Furthermore, that one of the several ministries involved, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Natural Resources and others, be designated as the lead ministry to deal with this emerging technology.”

I have signed it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

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

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

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

chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981,

chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982,

chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983,

chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986,

chapter 64,

section 69.”

This petition is signed by a number of residents of various locations in the province. I will add my signature to it.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by over 400 residents of Sault Ste. Marie. It reads as follows:

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

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

“Once again the Ontario government is directly responsible for a tragic murder of a young woman as a result of the inept system of service delivery to adult and young offenders. The policy of contracting out and privatization of facilities has given the citizens of Ontario a haphazard network of services which Celia Ruygrok and Krista Sepp have paid for with their lives!

“To operate within restrictive budgets, private operators hire inexperienced staff at the minimum wage. They can’t afford to train staff and must

schedule staff to work alone. People working alone cannot guarantee the safety of the residents, the safety of the members of the community or their own safety.

“Therefore, we the undersigned demand that the government of Ontario ensure that all private publicly funded agencies dealing with adult and young offenders be staffed appropriately.”

I have affixed my name to it and I present it for the government’s serious consideration.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Fleet moved first reading of Bill 6,

An Act to amend certain Statutes to create Heritage Day and Civic Holiday as Public Holidays.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Fleet: A public holiday to celebrate our heritage is an idea whose time has come. This bill proposes a public holiday, Heritage Day, on the third Monday of February, which is the start of Ontario’s annual Heritage Week.

The bill also proposes a public holiday on the first Monday of August, Civic Holiday. Currently, the Civic Holiday is not universally a legal right. It is only available to employees through collective agreements, the Public Service Act or subject to municipal proclamation or bylaw.

In the words of a draft paper of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s issues, “Public holidays are a basic” --

The Speaker: Order. It is certainly in order to explain the bill, but not to debate it.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 7,

An Act respecting Heritage Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr McLean: The purpose of this bill is to name the third Monday in the month of February Heritage Day and to designate this day as a holiday in Ontario. Previously, I brought in some bills with regard to Simcoe Day and some of my colleagues had indicated they would support Heritage Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North adjourned the debate. Any further comments?

Mr Offer: I do have some further comments in dealing with this speech from the throne. As I recall, yesterday I indicated that this throne speech is a concerted, focused speech dealing with the priorities of this government in the upcoming session and I indicated those priorities, as recited in the throne speech, as being:

“1. Building on our economic strengths to ensure tomorrow’s growth;

“2. Investing in the future of our children by making our education system a more effective springboard to opportunity;

“3. Reforming social assistance to help people move from dependence to self-reliance;

“4. Keeping our communities and neighbourhoods safe and secure;

“5. Promoting healthy lifestyles and preserving quality health care;

“6. Providing leadership in environmental protection.”

Yesterday, I dealt at some length with priority number one, building on our economic strength, by indicating that there is a challenge being given to this province, an opportunity because of the strength of this province through its large manufacturing base, through the skills, ability, willpower and willingness of our workforce to compete in a global economy, and that it is important this government make it a very high priority to lead the way, to provide the pathway for our manufacturing base and our workforce to be able to meet that challenge.

The work of the Premier’s Council on the economy, the record of this government, is such that we are leading, we are building that path so that this province will be a leader and will be able to compete, not only within this country but outside, in a technologically demanding workforce and workplace. As such, this will provide direct and indirect benefit to many persons throughout this province.

If I might, I would like to deal with one other matter brought forward in this throne speech; that is, reforming social assistance to help people move from dependence to self-reliance. I believe that when we talk about this particular aspect of the throne speech, it is important it is indicated as a priority. As we meet these challenges of a technologically demanding society, we must as a caring province realize that there is a prosperity which is not shared by all, that there are those less fortunate, caught up in a type of poverty, caught up in a vortex almost, with no escape.

Last session, this government continued to combat poverty in this province by providing substantial increases in benefits for social assistance programs. We introduced measures to reduce homelessness and increased funding for shelter subsidies.

I have taken note how this government, under the leadership of the Premier (Mr Peterson) and under the leadership of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), has shown itself, and they have shown themselves, to be at once ready to move on these very important issues and to be caring and understanding. That has been converted into programs, programs of substance, programs that meet real needs in a real way.

I note that since 1985 the accomplishments in the area of social assistance alone have been in excess of $300 million. There have been not only general rate increases in general welfare and family benefits, but there have been special increases for children, special extensions in terms of children’s winter clothing, extensions that are concrete, positive, necessary and ongoing.

There has also been a move by this government, and I know it has already been discussed, in terms of the appointment of the independent public review under George Thomson in July 1986. That particular appointment and that particular review resulted in the visiting of 14 communities for public hearings, in 1,500 briefs and submissions received, resulting in a blueprint for reform.

It shows a commitment and a determination on the part of this government, this Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services that it is not sufficient only to increase the dollar amount of these programs to meet particular needs, but it is also necessary to take a look at the whole framework to make certain that the framework itself from which these programs are derived is such that it will move people from welfare cheques to paycheques.

I think it is almost trite to say that we as members meet daily with persons in need, persons who require assistance, persons who want assistance to move out of the cycle they find themselves in -- the single parents with children who want to better themselves, who want to be able to have the opportunity of training, of getting out and competing in the workforce. That is what this type of examination is about.

It is important that in a throne speech we take a look to see if that is on the government’s agenda. I see that is the third item. It says, “Reforming social assistance to help people move from dependence to self-reliance.” That is meeting a fundamental need in terms of the framework as to how people will be able to move from such assistance to help themselves.

There has also been the move in terms of an expansion of employment programs for social assistance recipients. This third very large activity of this government represents a new era of federal and provincial co-operation with respect to employment programs for social assistance recipients.

This session, we as a government are going to address and attack these issues through continued reform, because we must continue to meet the needs of those who are unable to be self-sufficient. We must realize, and this government does, and it is evidenced through this throne speech, that there is that need to take a look at the structure whereby people can move from assistance to their own self-determination. They are ready, those people are able and it is the necessity and the obligation of government to provide the way.

We have to continue to move forward in terms of increased payments for shelter support to persons on social assistance. We have to remove the barriers that serve as disincentives to work. We must expand the network of employment counselling, referral, basic training and job preparation programs. We must increase children’s benefits. This government, through this throne speech and through its history and its record, is prepared to do just that.

I think we have the wealth and the creativity in this province to prevent the unfortunate hardships imposed by what is becoming an increasingly economically divided society. This throne speech and the priorities put on this issue by this government surely lead the way in making this a province that continues to be caring, compassionate and understanding.

There is a priority indicated in this throne speech about keeping our communities and neighbourhoods safe and secure. I guess not a day goes by but we do not hear something through the media about some occurrence, some incident, some form of violence. It is not just an inner city type of incident; it is something that affects all persons in this province in terms of the growing impact of drugs on our youth.

Last session, there was the task force chaired by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black). That was a task force of one person who travelled the province and made recommendations that were applauded across the province as serving as a blueprint for this government. I am very proud to have the member as a colleague because of the work he has done and the important, fundamental improvements he is really leading in terms of this very important issue.

This session, we as a government remain committed to building on a comprehensive antidrug strategy. We are going to do that through education and prevention programs which will include antidrug education in primary and secondary schools, and community-based programs in what may be deemed high-risk neighbourhoods.

We have to have a wider range of treatment programs, including employee assistance programs. We also must expand our drug enforcement capacity, including a strengthened Ontario Provincial Police drug enforcement unit. There are many things that can be done in terms of making our communities and neighbourhoods safe and secure.

The work done by the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the taking up of that work by this government are going to go far in providing the safety and security that the people of this province not only need but deserve.

I could not leave this particular topic without dealing with the issue of court reform. There has not been a fundamental court reform in this province for over 100 years. It was just at the beginning of this week that the Attorney General (Mr Scott) announced far-reaching court reform legislation.

As I have indicated, we have not had an overhaul of the court system since 1881 in this province. There have been, of course, ad hoc modifications, but major reform has not occurred for over 100 years. I must say that the response I have been getting in my riding of Mississauga North and indeed the response I have been reading through the Mississauga newspaper, which has gone out and canvassed persons on the street, has been: “Yes, we do need court reform.

Yes, we do applaud the work of this government and the Attorney General of this province, because this government is embarking on a historic and significant task, because it is a total revision of our judicial court system, the ultimate goal of which is to create a system that is more accessible and efficient.”

The court system in this province serves the people of Ontario. That is what it is there to do. That is its reason for existence. In keeping with the goal of court reform, which is the creation of a more effective and accessible system, this government has increased the maximum amount for an action in small claims court in Toronto from $3,000 to $5,000, and outside of Toronto from $1,000 to $5,000, so there will be a level across the province of $5,000.

I personally feel confident about the success of this undertaking. I realize it is large -- it is extremely large -- but I feel confident because ultimately the public interest will be better served. When the public interest in better served, I think we will get the support from the opposition party and the third party and the support and co-operation from the federal government that are so necessary. We can settle for nothing less if the justice system is to continue to have the respect and confidence of the people.

In terms of court reform, we must all always bear in mind that the purpose of the total court reform vision is to advance and improve the administration of justice and provide the best possible trial court structure for the people of this province.

This throne speech carries with it six priorities, six items which are issues of importance, six areas where this government is proceeding to move to build upon its strength and to build upon its record, which will be a benefit to all persons in this province.

I am proud of the leadership shown by the Premier and by the cabinet. I am proud of being part of a caucus which is going to move forward in all of these areas to make certain that this province provides on one hand the opportunity for all, and on the other hand provides assistance for those who need it, and provides an opportunity for those who need assistance not only to receive that assistance, but also to receive training and education to be able to go out and do what they can do best.

That is a responsibility and an obligation of this government and it should be such. In closing, I look forward to carrying forward the initiatives in this throne speech. I look forward to carrying forward this clear, precise and focused agenda of this government in the session ahead.

Mr Allen: It is a pleasure to rise and address the issues raised by the throne speech presented by the government a week ago. The lack of comment upon the last speaker’s remarks may not reflect so much upon the speaker as the relative emptiness of the throne speech which he was speaking to.

In stage after stage in this address from the throne, we find an unusual degree of contradiction. One finds, for example, a great deal of reference to continuing to pursue the high-technology initiatives of this government at a time when we are losing firms like Lumonics Inc. to Japanese buyers, just as we lost the initiatives of a major research group at the University of Waterloo in the field of advanced artificial intelligence and lost the development of computers to another Japanese research group a couple of years ago.

We look at educational proposals that propose to expand the space needs and demands on the system, and at the same time the government has cut back its capital funding limits to the school systems in question. One looks at proposals, for example, for increasing specialization in grades 10 to 12 in fields like math, science and technology at a time when there is no possible way of implementing that in terms of the teaching cadre that is available. There are massive shortages in each of those fields of instruction.

One moves into rather vague and generalized words on safe and secure communities and equally vague words on healthy lifestyles and preserving the quality of life and quality of health care in the province at a time when, for example, at recent hearings on one of the major health problems -- perhaps the major health problem in the country, certainly with respect to the measurable deaths that follow from it; namely, the problem of tobacco use and more particularly tobacco use in the workplace -- all of the health professionals who came before us rejected the government’s legislation, yet the government was not prepared to amend it in any consequential way.

We, of course, end up with a continuing leadership in environmental protection which proposes to fund environmental protection on the basis of a lottery called Cleantario. As I observed in one of my reactions in the media, it was something like spreading moral pollution to cope with environmental pollution and is certainly not an adequate way of funding basic governmental programs.

I do not so much, however, want to spend my time going through all aspects of this throne speech; I want to focus my remarks rather more than that. But before I do that, I want also to note that in my own field of social services and the office for the disabled, for which I am the critic, I note no remarks whatsoever and no proposals that apparently this government feels necessary to advance to priority stage with respect to the disabled in this province. That is a very unsettling absence from this document.

Having rehearsed very carefully with the minister in charge of the Office for Disabled Persons not long ago the many outstanding areas in which there is urgent need of action on behalf of the people with the various disability afflictions in this province, I find it strange that none of those programs and none of those issues have found their way into the throne speech. It suggests to me that perhaps the advocacy function that the minister and that office are supposed to perform for the government, in fact, is not being very effectively undertaken.

Notwithstanding the energy that the minister himself, I am sure, tries to pour into that, his own government has not been listening and the people who are disabled, the disability community in this province, clearly have not been heard.

I would also observe that many pressing issues that we confronted in the course of the last session in the field of social services remain entirely unaddressed, ones that one would suspect to have gained attention of the kind of priority that would have lofted those issues into a speech from the throne. I refer particularly, for example, to two of them.

One is the ongoing and very serious growing gap between the level of compensation provided by those who work in the agencies that are indirectly funded by the government and those who do the same jobs in agencies that are directly dependent upon the government and operated by and through the government. That gap, the gap between the transfer and the directly funded agencies, is a growing and serious one. The transfer agencies in question house individuals who work there and who often begin at below-poverty-level wages, at a time when we are supposed to be addressing the question of poverty in Ontario.

How a government squares that with its conscience I find difficult to understand. Yet it appears that in the transition towards more and more community-based programs in those areas and the movement of government out of the direct provision of those services, that seems to be the model; namely, that the lower-wage sector will prevail and, indeed, impoverished wages will prevail and the gap will disappear in that fashion. That is a very serious question.

The second is an even more urgent question. When the Red Cross and other homemaking organizations in the province told us that they could no longer survive, and that they were going to have to get out of the business within six months unless the government really did something about the accumulating deficits the organizations faced -- the government had already had a three-year-old study six months in its hands on how to deal with that issue -- the response that was required was obvious.

Funding was obviously the first thing that had to be done and some additional service provided in that sector, by way of training of homemakers and so on, in order to help professionalize the service somewhat more.

None the less, although by the time of the throne speech the government had in hand the report of the consulting agency that it sent out into the field to evaluate the homemaking services, there was still no response at the level of the throne speech in terms of how the government was going to respond to the crisis in homemaking in Ontario. I only have to remind members of the House that the provision of homemaking is the key element in community-based health care, the one approach that offers some relief from overcrowded nursing homes and from overcrowded chronic care wards in hospitals.

I could go on into other aspects of my particular critic areas which are absent from this document that was delivered from the Speaker’s chair by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the government, but I want to spend my time on the question raised by the element of the throne speech that addresses the Social Assistance Review Committee’s report, not in name, certainly, but in substance in terms of the

section which is headed, “Social Assistance: Moving from Dependence to Self-reliance.”

First of all, the government members have grown used to claiming credit for the establishment of this review committee, which evaluated the social assistance programs of this province. I want to remind the House that the real source of this document for the reform of the social assistance system that was tabled with us some eight months ago now came out of the work of my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston), who shortly after his election to this House some nine or 10 years ago embarked on a major campaign which was his preoccupying forté in this House; namely, the issue of poverty in Ontario.

He did his examination of poverty questions; he did his poverty tours; he produced his studies, like The Other Ontario, an examination of poverty in Ontario. He then produced a major evaluation of the system called Changing the System. Early in those years he of course gained some notoriety for his going on the welfare diet for a period of one month and lost a great many pounds in doing so.

Finally, about two years ago now, he stood in this House and he asked the government to institute, at long last, a major study of the problems which it knew by this time did exist in the system. After a month or six weeks, the government set up the committee that he asked for, the work got under way and the report was ultimately produced.

I want to note that on behalf of that document and the main thrust of its proposals, there is currently on the grounds of Queen’s Park a vigil being held from now until the time of the delivery of the budget. People who are out there have come from a group called the Interfaith Social Assistance Review Committee, which represents 14 different faith groups in Ontario. They are there offering their prayers that the government of Ontario, the members of this Legislature, throughout this session will make the problem of the poor in Ontario and the implementation of the entire first stage, at least, of the Social Assistance Review Committee’s report the first business of this Legislature.

They are still hopeful that after months of lobbying, the case will be heard. They are not convinced, as I am not convinced, that the items that are noted in the speech from the throne represent the full implementation of the first stage of the Thomson report’s recommendations, let alone some additional proposals that those groups have wanted included in the first stage of reforms. I will note the most important of those is the request that the government make a major improvement in the minimum wage. I will make a further comment on the significance of that in relation to the elements that are set forward in the speech from the throne.

Let me note, first of all, the grand design of the Thomson committee’s report: the grand design is that you cannot reform social assistance in this province simply by dealing with the social assistance system in isolation from the larger problems of poverty and social support which are necessary in our system and which are not satisfactorily addressed by the economy itself; you cannot, in short, address the problems of social assistance without addressing the problems of the working poor.

We are told by this report and by others that there are over one million poor in Ontario, roughly half of them on the social assistance system and the other half working poor. We are told that of those poor the largest single group is children, some 360,000 of them, just as among those on social assistance the largest single group is again children, some 37 per cent of the whole case load or over 200,000. We are told, in other words, that poverty in Ontario is a very, very significant ongoing fact.

You hear the statistics in a very unemotional kind of way, but when you do as I did recently and march with a group of antipoverty marchers through communities in Ontario, large and small, ranging in my case from Sudbury through to Parry Sound, from the other side of London through to Kitchener, from Bowmanville into Toronto, you begin to glimpse something of the scale of poverty and what it means for individuals and families around the province.

You begin to realize that the impression many people have, that this is essentially a problem of the high-cost economy of Toronto, is really not the case. It is a problem of the low-cost economies in tourist regions, it is a problem of the economies of small French-Canadian communities in the north, it is a problem of depressed rural regions such as the one the person inhabiting the Speaker’s chair at the moment comes from.

In Prescott-Russell, I am told, the average income level is perhaps the lowest in the province on a per capita basis. It is a very severe situation which needs to be addressed. Similarly, in the Sharbot Lake area and parts of the Bruce county area it is the same thing. Even in the prosperous regions of western Ontario there are, on the back concessions and even on some of the main highways, farms that are not delivering their families adequate and appropriate support, and these families are numbered among the poor.

When you go into the native reserves of the north, as I did -- I stayed two nights on two native reserves, the Magnetawan reserve and the Shawanaga reserve -- the people there share the common lot of native people in this province, namely, 63 per cent of those over 15 years or 16 years of age have an annual income of less than $5,000 a year. The rate of dependence on social assistance in the native community is nine times the provincial average.

You move into communities that you have supposed were prosperous. To a person who goes to Stratford, for example, to go to the Stratford Festival, it looks very prosperous. Then you get there, sit down and talk with people and are told: “In this community we don’t like to acknowledge the poverty that is in the community. Yes, we have a couple of food banks and the poor are hidden away in the back streets and you don’t see them when you are here as a tourist and as a visitor.” But it is there, it is real, it is hard and it is not livable for the people concerned.

You go into a tourist region like the Parry Sound-Muskoka region. What are the average income levels? The average person on a wage income in Parry Sound earns $5 an hour. The average female in Muskoka earns $8,000 a year, the average male in those regions $13,000 a year. Yet if you ask what is happening to housing, for example, and land costs in the area, you are told, as you are told in all communities within 100 miles and 150 miles of Toronto, that housing and land prices are being driven up by the fact that people from Metro are eyeing the lower-cost properties and paying a handsome price for them.

They are able to live there with the surplus from the sale of their original properties back in Toronto or Hamilton or Oshawa or in the higher-priced areas.

The people who are residents in those tourist regions and smaller towns east, west and north of Toronto are finding that the wage economy is not able to get them access to affordable housing any longer. When you are in Parry Sound and discover that one of the major facilities for low-cost housing is about to be torn down and there is no replacement in sight, you begin to realize the kind of pressure that individuals are under.

In other words, poverty is widespread in this province. It is not just confined to Metro Toronto, though it is severe here. Throughout this province, the conditions that have made for food banks in Toronto are making for food banks elsewhere. Government is, I am afraid, tending to rely more and more on those who provide those services to get it off the hook of the expanded commitment it should be making to social supports.

What the SARC report proposes is that you cannot move people out of the welfare trap, out of the poverty cycle, unless you do something about the working poor. The moment you tip people off the brink, if you like, of the social assistance system and they find themselves once more in the low-wage economy, as inevitably most of them end up, they discover that they cannot meet the costs, especially if they have any additional needs in the medical world, in the medical aspect of their lives, such as excessive dental costs. Anything that comes along that is extra immediately throws them back on to social assistance.

The Thomson report outlined a grand design, whereby it proposed to move through improving the benefit adequacy, simplifying the system and moving towards income supplementation and child benefits, in order to provide across the board for the kind of family support system that would make it very, very difficult for people to have to resort in the end to social assistance and if they did, they would be well supported.

There are perhaps two essential things that alarm me about the speech from the throne with respect to the design the Thomson report laid out. The first is that nowhere in this speech from the throne is there mention of the name of George Thomson, of the SARC report or of the name Transitions, which attaches to the document, as though somehow the government were wanting to distance itself from the design of this particular proposal and ultimately from its costs.

Yet you have to underscore the fact that unless you follow the route that the Thomson design offers, there is no escape from the dilemmas and the difficulties that any social assistance system finds itself in. That is the first problem: Has the design been accepted by the government or not?

Nothing in this document tells us that the government is moving on the whole design or that it is committed, as the head of that committee, George Thomson, asked, to providing within six months some intention of its overall direction of response, where it would move, how it would move as a kind of overall commitment to the work that the committee had done. We have not seen that. We did not see it at the end of six months and we have not seen it at the end of eight months. We have not seen it in the throne speech, and quite frankly, I am afraid we will not see that either in the budget.

The next question I address myself to is whether the government in the throne speech has in fact addressed the first stage of reforms. The first stage of reforms Thomson proposed were ones which had a spectrum of proposals; the spectrum of proposals was intended to address the various elements of the whole plan.

It was intended to address the question of the adequacy of benefit levels, so that all persons would be considered in terms of their needs, that there would not be a categorization of people on to general welfare, for example, whose benefits are so much lower than those on family benefits, and those, in turn, less than someone else’s, with the elaborate system of staging of who deserves more out of this system.

The whole question of just deserts was not raised by the Thomson commission other than to say, “Our examination of the issue tells us that all persons on social assistance are in need and deservedly so. We need to respond to them in that term and that term only, and not in terms of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor formula.” So the whole benefits question was to be addressed in the first stage of the Thomson report’s reforms in those terms.

Then there was to be a major initiative with respect to removing work disincentives to employment which exist in the system. There was to be some attack upon an expansion of employability programs, and an improvement, as a first indication of the government’s preparedness to move towards income supplementation, in the expansion of the work incentive program.

I note there was some additional concern that the government should move immediately, for example, at the level of medical and dental benefits for all low-income persons.

There was also some concern that the government, in addition to addressing the income level, the benefit level adequacy, would move also at the level of work and employability, in providing incentives, making some token recognition at least of the need to move towards income supplementation and of a need to provide benefits for the working poor.

Then there was to be some major movement in the direction of simplifying the system, providing more precise rules, which can be done through regulations rather than through legislation, and providing less discretion, eliminating the amount of discretion in the system so that people who are clients know where they stand in it.

There was to be a new disability determination process. There was to be improvement in case-load ratios, because one of the major problems in the system at the moment is the problem of service in the direct contact between client and social worker. The loads are so heavy that it is difficult not to deal with that in a very mechanical and impersonal way.

Then there was to be some response to the other major problem that is out there that affects especially rural municipalities and unconsolidated municipalities, namely, that there is a great variation in the delivery of social services across this province. There are some municipalities, for example, where the last month’s rent will be paid and others where it will not be paid by the municipality as a way of helping the person on welfare secure accommodation.

You will find, for example, as we did on the march, that out in one of the communities, I think it was north of Belleville, one of the social services administrators had prided himself on saving $1.8 million for the ministry in the course of the past year. How had he done it? He simply used his discretionary power not to provide special needs to anybody, regardless of whether people qualified for them.

Across the province there is a very uneven delivery of social services. The Thomson report asks that in the first stage of reforms, there be a major response to that by developing standards and conditions for municipal delivery and making certain they are enforced, take place and are properly funded.

There were also indications in the first stage of reforms that the Thomson report wanted to see the government get off its backside on the question of literacy programs, where it has rested for the last two or three years after an initiative that the government made a great hullabaloo about out here with a big tent on the front lawn.

But things have settled down and not much that is very new or exciting or expansive is really happening on that front, as far as government funding and new initiatives are concerned. Yet that is critical to address in a massive way in order to provide the foundation for the employability programs and the employability capacities of people on the social assistance system.

Having outlined that first stage -- and that is not all of the detail that the full document provides but only the

summary of it -- let me look at what is proposed in this throne speech. The throne speech, first of all, proposes increased payments for shelter support to persons on social assistance. That is all that the government says at this point in time with respect to the question of benefit adequacy.

Are they going to implement the first-stage increases that are outlined on page 106 in the

summary document, for example, in particular for the single employable person who presently receives so much less on a personal basis than other persons in the social assistance system? A 22 per cent increase was required in order to bring them up even to near adequacy and there is no commitment to that kind of increase.

The observation in the report is that recipients should be reimbursed for 100 per cent of actual shelter costs up to the existing shelter subsidy ceilings, and actual utilities costs should be recognized in full. These shelter-related changes are the most costly of the reforms to be introduced at this stage, but they underline the urgency of doing that.

There is no indication that what is talked about here by increased payments for shelter support will in fact reach that level of 100 per cent of actual shelter costs up to existing shelter subsidy ceilings. One can only conclude that the government did not want to commit itself to moving that far.

Then there are the two proposals which have to do with employability. The government does say it will remove barriers which serve as disincentives to work. One has to assume that what is referred to is at least one of the items in the first-stage reforms, namely, the proposal that the 120-hour rule limiting the monthly paid employment for sole-support parents be eliminated, so that those parents would be able to engage in employment that was more than part-time, more than low-wage and thus hasten their move off the welfare rolls.

That is not spelled out specifically, but apparently the government is going to move in some such direction. That, taken together with the expansion of the network of employment counselling, referral, basic training and job preparation programs, which is the third point, will undoubtedly do something to help those on social assistance to move in the right direction, namely, towards self-sufficiency and self-support.

But two things are missing from this, apart from details. First of all, there is no reference to the proposal that the first stage says is necessary in order to complement those two items, namely, with regard to an improvement and expansion of the work incentive program as a first step in developing income supplementation.

In response to a question of mine yesterday, the minister said that he had to wait for federal-provincial negotiations to do anything in the area of income supplementation. I took that to mean that he was not going to do anything by way of any improvement or expansion of the work incentive program, which does provide some income supplementation for those who are now in the category of working poor, having begun to move their way off social assistance.

Nor, of course, is there any reference to the provision of benefits. Even to provide dental benefits would be a substantial assistance, not just for the children involved especially, but for the families involved who perhaps try to skimp on a lot of other things in order to keep their children’s teeth in any sort of decent repair.

But the government could also quite clearly move with another recommendation that the Thomson committee report proposed at the level of benefits for the working poor; namely, it could provide access to drug benefit cards. That certainly would be an awful lot cheaper than having the people who have to meet those drug costs go off their employment and to social assistance in order to get access to a drug benefit card so they can manage to keep body and soul together when confronted with health care costs.

Yet none of those is mentioned, and they are crucial to the second and third points.

If the government is going to remove the disincentives to work for those who are already on social assistance so that they can move into employment, if it is going to provide “employment counselling, referral, basic training and job preparation programs” on an expanded basis -- I say in parentheses they have not worked very well for this government in the past -- if it is going to do those two things in order to help people get into employment, the government has to recognize that those who are on social assistance are frequently such, in terms of their training, abilities, work experience and soon, that they are going to end up in the low-wage economy.

The government has to do something by way of improving their capacity to survive in the low-wage economy.

The government does not have to go to Ottawa to make a major improvement in the minimum wage, for example. This party has proposed for years that there be a major increase in the minimum wage, yet the minimum wage goes on at a level which at this time is less than the real value it held a decade and a half ago.

If the government does not, as well, provide for the additional costs that overwhelm low-income families by way of provision of benefits -- of course, few of them are in job situations where the employer provides those benefits -- it is again going to have them cycling back on to social assistance and welfare as long as we provide an honest and decent support system in the welfare system.

It is a total incongruity that if one is aiming at providing an adequate level of social assistance, one then permits people who are trying to work for a living and be productive in the economy to have to survive on something less than that social assistance system and the supports it provides for individuals and families.

The absence of supports in this first stage, the absence of the supports proposed even on a limited basis by the Thomson committee, let alone the ones the government could put in place if it wanted to, prejudice fundamentally those second two points and will render them, I submit to the members, absolutely inoperative. The moment you move off social assistance into that low-wage economy, you jeopardize your survival and you are going to find your way back, sooner or later, the moment the first crisis arises, on to the social assistance system.

In those respects, I also find that this document does not tell me the government is moving to implement the first stage of the Thomson report’s proposals.

Then there is a final proposal: “Increased children’s benefits.” It sits there in all its mystery. Nobody can tell from those few words exactly what those words mean. If I were to read between the lines in some of the minister’s statements, made in the couple of weeks prior to our reassembly here at about the time the poverty marches were putting a good deal of heat on him and on the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr R. F.

Nixon), I would have to conclude that those words are probably an echo of his noting that he would have to do something to provide targeted subsidies for day care for those who are on social assistance; in other words, move the day care system backwards into more of a welfare-oriented system than a social service as the government originally promised in all of its policy documents.

If that is the case, then that is very unfortunate. If it indeed means something more, one wishes the government had said what it was.

Those out there, for example, in the Child Poverty Action Group, in the teaching community, in the nursing community, those who have had hands-on experience of the problems of child poverty, the problems that children who are poor have in learning, the problem one is discovering, in this city in particular, of the need to provide breakfast for children who go to school so that they can learn properly -- if in fact these three words, “increased children’s benefits,” mean some major response to the needs of poor kids, then one can only shout and clap one’s hands in glee.

I will do that indeed if something substantial appears in the budget in about a week and a half’s time to flesh out these three words in that direction. But for the moment, all the hints we have tell us that those three words simply mean some targeted welfare form of day care, and that will be the end of the story for the time being.

There is nothing here, I hasten to go on to say, that tells us the government is going to address the question of system simplification. The Thomson report pointed out that the 22 categories of social assistance in Ontario made absolutely no sense whatsoever. They could find no coherent reason for them. In fact, they discovered that a mother with two kids could find herself in one of 32 places in the system. It is a totally irrational pigeonholing of people on the basis of some supposed position in the hierarchy of whether one was a deserving poor person or not a deserving poor person. There is nothing in this throne speech that promises the government will move in that direction.

There is nothing that tells us there will be elimination of the discretionary powers in the regional offices around this province that make it so difficult for clients of the system to know where they stand at any point in time. The rules can differ from here to there to somewhere else. They are inconsistent and they clog up the whole system of appeals because nobody knows where he stands. Then the appeal board has to go through a rigmarole trying to determine whether he does or does not qualify for this or that and the whole system sort of slowly grinds to a halt. In the meantime, the recipient sits out there.

The benefits are not maintained while the appeal process is going on and misery is compounded by misery.

There is nothing in this document, the throne speech, to tell us that the government proposes to respond to the desperate need for an improvement in case load ratios. Anyone who talks to the people in the social work community knows how absolutely desperate their work situation is. Children’s aid societies in Hamilton are on strike at the moment, one for one major reason, namely, that the provision of personnel is so short that they are constantly badgered into doing overtime. They spend their evenings and weekends as well as their weekdays working on their cases.

It becomes impossible to get any relief from what is a very stressful profession, and of course people burn out, drop out and head elsewhere. There is no response to that in the throne speech either, nothing for the improvement of case loads and workloads.

It appears that the delivery of social assistance on an arbitrary, differential, varied basis across the province will continue and nothing in the throne speech tells us it will be otherwise. In other words, as far as one can tell at this point, the government is not in fact moving on the first full stage. It is not sending the signals to the social assistance recipients, the working poor and those people who work with those individuals.

The member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway) may look very puzzled about all that and he probably knows a great deal more about this than I do. None the less, I hope the semismile on his face tells me that when the Treasurer presents his budget on 17 May, as he told us today he would, these mere four points will find themselves gloriously expanded into the first full stage of the Thomson report’s proposals for reform.

Only in that way will we begin the steady march, step by step, on all the elements of the system in order to reach a final overhaul within three, four or five years’ time, when the whole has to be in place for us to have done justly by the poor in our province, to have done justly by the social assistance recipients and to have enabled people to begin to live again with a sense of dignity, independence and self-support. That day will be a day we will all rejoice in.

I must say the throne speech leaves me nervous and apprehensive about the scale of the response this government is anticipating with respect to this magnificent document, the Transitions document, provided by such a capable group of people headed by Judge George Thomson, who have given us, I think, one of the best reports on social assistance reform any administration on this continent has been distinguished to receive.

One can only hope that the government’s initiatives will not fail what this document proposes for this province in the end, and that those who exist in dependent poverty and those who exist in working poverty will be relieved of that burden in a very substantial way within a very few years.

Mrs Marland: I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the Liberal government’s throne speech of last w