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

May 8, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

NURSES WEEK

ROYAL CANADIAN SEA CADET CORPS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

NATIONAL FOREST WEEK

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CANCER TREATMENT

RECREATION FACILITIES

RESPONSES

CANCER TREATMENT

RECREATION FACILITIES

CANCER TREATMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE

BRIDGE REPAIRS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

HEALTH INSURANCE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

LOT LEVIES

CHILD CARE

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS

INSURANCE COMPANY BANKRUPTCY

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

HOME CARE

ST LAWRENCE SQUARE

HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION

FLOODING

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HOME CARE

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1989

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1989

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS’ LICENSING ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: The vigil for the full implementation of the first-stage reforms of the Transitions report on social assistance continues today at Queen’s Park. Members of the Interfaith Social Assistance Review Committee, representing 14 different faith groups, do not believe that the measures contained in the speech from the throne are sufficient to begin to break the cycle of poverty which traps people on social assistance.

The benefits proposed do not assure recipients of 100 per cent of shelter costs. The employability proposals will be ineffective without measures to improve the lot of the working poor, such as a large improvement in the minimum wage and/or medical-dental benefits. The child benefit reference is too vague even to be commented upon.

Missing are such first-stage Transitions proposals as lifting the assets ceilings, standardizing the delivery of social services in all municipalities so that there is equal and accessible service for all, reducing social work case loads and eliminating much of the discretion allowed workers, which creates both discrimination and confusion in service delivery.

The vigil is looking to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to make good these failures of the throne speech and to announce the full package of the key reforms proposed in the Transitions report. I join them in their urgent prayers and requests to that gentleman.

NURSES WEEK

Mr Eves: It gives me pleasure to rise in the House and comment on Nurses Week, which started yesterday and runs through 13 May. I think all of us in society have come to appreciate more and more, especially in recent years, the great contribution that these health care professionals make to our health care system, not only here in Ontario but indeed throughout the country and worldwide.

I think it is very appropriate that in the last few years nurses are finally starting to get some respect in the health care field. Unfortunately, part of this has come because of increased stresses on them in their day-to-day workplace and the shortage of nurses, especially the shortage of specialized nurses, staff nurses, that we see throughout our health care system in Ontario and elsewhere today.

I am pleased to see that the minister has addressed some of the problems with respect to the nursing shortage in Ontario, most particularly those of ensuring that staff nurses have appropriate representation on hospital committees, especially with respect to matters such as finance and the like.

However, those of us on this side of the Legislature are still awaiting some more positive steps from the Ministry of Health with respect to the 13 or 14 other recommendations that have been in four separate nursing shortage reports -- I should put it that way, I suppose -- that the minister has in her possession. We look forward to her taking the appropriate measures with respect to them as well.

ROYAL CANADIAN SEA CADET CORPS

Mr Tatham: This is the stuff that builds a community. It is hard work and discipline. I was impressed: awards for the most improved cadet, the best guardsman, the best marksman, most tiddly. What does “most tiddly” mean? That means the most immaculate uniform and appearance on a year-round basis. These were some of the awards presented at the 49th annual inspection of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps, Woodstock.

It was an excellent presentation, a show involving teenagers who work hard to learn their drills and share the camaraderie of a ship’s company. The band was superb. The drill team presentation represented many weeks of practice. The shear-legs demonstration with ropes and pulleys was completed in just over five minutes, a record for sea cadets.

I congratulate the families, I congratulate the staff and I say to the young sailors that they are contributing to their own development and the future of our country. Well done.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr Hampton: For some months now both the government’s own employees who are represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the teachers of the province have been asking the provincial government to bargain seriously on the issue of their pension plans. The main issue for both the teachers of the province and provincial employees is to have an equal voice in the investment and other decisions affecting their pension plans.

This is not a radical or revolutionary idea in a democratic jurisdiction. If anything, the position of the province’s public employees and teachers is most democratic, and one would think that the government, a government that portrays itself as being open and consultative, would look favourably upon this position. But for some reason, the government has not. One would also hope that the government would want to be a leading and progressive force in the pension debates in our society, but again, it is not.

One would also expect that the government would take heed of the recent Ontario Hydro decision and realize that time is moving forward in our society, that even the courts now recognize that the employees ought to have an equal say in their pension plan. But alas, the government is not even listening to the courts. The government seems to have its mind stuck in the past on this issue.

NATIONAL FOREST WEEK

Mr Pollock: This week has been declared National Forest Week. It gives us an opportunity to consider the vital importance of our forests to life on earth. Our forests are being destroyed around the world. The rain forests of South America and Indonesia are being destroyed at an alarming rate. In Africa, for every tree that is planted, 29 are cut down. It is clear that every time a tree is cut down and not replaced, the world moves closer to an environmental disaster.

To prevent this greenhouse effect from advancing, we must protect our forests. In our province, we should consider the importance of the forest industry to the economy of Ontario. Over 75 percent of Ontario is covered with trees. More than 250,000 people depend on the forest industry for their livelihoods. Exports of forest products from Ontario were valued at $3.5 billion last year. If we want to continue to reap the benefits, we must replant.

I am sad to say that in David Peterson’s Ontario, reforestation is not a priority. There has been no leadership in this area of forest management, and a weak commitment to protect the future and health of our forest industry. If the Liberals are sincere about reforestation, they should spend the $35 million raised under the softwood lumber tax on reforestation and on forest-related research. This would show Ontario can be proven to be a leader to the world in protecting our forests.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Faubert: I rise today to inform the members of this House and consumers across this province of a sequence of events which illustrates the limitations of putting a stop on a cheque as well as apparent inequities in the federal Bills of Exchange Act.

Mr and Mrs Mojsovki, former residents of my riding, wrote a post-dated cheque for $45,000 to be invested in First Grelor Financial Ltd, owned by one Gregory Kostoff. When documentation was not forthcoming, they demanded their cheque back, put a stop on the cheque at their bank four full days prior to its due date and advised Mr Kostoff. Mr Kostoff then proceeded to deposit the stopped cheque into his account at the National Bank. He returned later and was able to obtain a $30,000 certified cheque from the National Bank. It was apparent that the National Bank had neglected to clear the Mojsovkis’ cheque prior to crediting the funds to Kostoff’s account.

When the National Bank discovered that the cheque had been stopped, it was able to recover all but $16,000 from Mr Kostoff, who subsequently left the country. The Mojsovkis were contacted by the National Bank two years later and informed they were liable for the $16,000 and the bank was taking action to secure that amount. This was later upheld in a district court ruling under the provisions of the federal Bills of Exchange Act and a judgement secured against their house.

Clearly this was and is inequitable, and I call on all members of this House to make consumers in their ridings aware of the limitations of a stopped cheque. I call on the federal government to review and amend the Bills of Exchange Act to provide better protection for all consumers in Ontario.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Reville: Back in 1986 when the standing committee on social development took the opportunity to review the estimates for the Ministry of Health, the then Minister of Health acknowledged that the facility for the criminally insane called Oak Ridge in Penetanguishene should be replaced. It is 1989 now and this is what the administrator of the hospital is saying: “Some time in the next decade, we would hope some sort of decision would be made. We are keeping our fingers crossed.” Thousands of people in Ontario are keeping their fingers crossed waiting for this government to get on with the things it has promised to do.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CANCER TREATMENT

Hon Mrs Caplan: Beginning today and over the coming weeks and months, I will be making a series of announcements on a number of specific issues related to the provision of health services in our province.

In the recent throne speech, our government reaffirmed its belief that everyone in Ontario is entitled to access to quality health care regardless of ability to pay. As a government, we are prepared to protect that principle and take every step possible to maintain and strengthen it.

Furthermore, we understand that the health of our society rests on more than an effective health care system. We know that the health of individuals is tied to a number of factors, including education, literacy, employment, housing, our physical and work environments, as well as a host of other key influences that fundamentally affect the health and wellbeing of people.

To begin responding to this new understanding of health, my ministry recently identified six areas for promoting change and renewal within our health care system: We want to see better-informed consumers of health care; we want to see a true network of community-based health care in the province; we want to see our hospitals properly funded and well managed; we want to build beneficial relationships with the private sector; we want to see a new emphasis on quality assurance in patient care and treatment, and we want to clarify and promote effective working relationships among health care professionals.

As we move to achieve these goals, we recognize that short-term pressures must also be addressed. I have therefore asked my ministry staff to identify and bring forward an action plan for specialty care, an action plan that will respond to the needs in several key areas: cancer care, cardiovascular services, emergency and trauma care, maternal and newborn health, AIDS, kidney dialysis and lithotripsy.

This morning at the Toronto Bayview Regional Cancer Centre, I was pleased to announce the start of a new province-wide screening program for breast cancer. As members are aware, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women between the ages of 50 and 64 in our province. This screening program will encourage women in this age group to attend cancer screening clinics every two years for a physical examination, mammogram and instruction in breast self-examination.

By 1995, we want to have at least 36 centres established across the province. The cost of the program, while significant, is not our principal concern. The organizational structure, the mix of health professionals, the necessary data and information systems and women educated and knowledgeable about the service are the factors that will make the breast screening program a success.

When the screening program is fully implemented, we expect more than 300,000 women to use it. Experts tell us that with good screening, breast cancer deaths for women in the 50 to 64 age group can be reduced by up to 40 per cent.

The screening program will be administered by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation. Representatives from its eight regional treatment centres will work with members of district health councils, health care professionals and consumers to ensure that the program is implemented in the most effective manner. To support the work of the centres, the OCTRF will develop an education program aimed at women and health professionals which emphasizes early detection and the benefits of breast screening.

I am also announcing today the appointment of Dr Aileen Clarke as the Ministry of Health’s new cancer program co-ordinator. Dr Clarke is currently chief of epidemiology and statistics for the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

In addition to these province-wide initiatives, I am pleased to announce that my ministry has increased its funding commitment to the northeastern Ontario regional cancer treatment centre to $16.8 million. This money will be used for the final phase of construction of the new centre at Sudbury’s Laurentian Hospital. It includes additional new funding of $3.3 million for up-to-date, state-of-the-art radiation therapy equipment. Later today, I will be in Sudbury and I look forward to visiting the centre and touring the new site.

When completed, the northeastern Ontario regional cancer treatment centre will provide a comprehensive range of care and treatment, including chemotherapy and radiation therapy, to residents living in northeastern Ontario. The new cancer centre reflects the growing capability of northern Ontario health services, a capability reflected in the appointment of Vickie Kaminski, assistant executive director of nursing at Sudbury Memorial Hospital, to head the investigative team at Toronto’s St Michael’s Hospital earlier this year.

While on this point, I wish to remind members that this is Nurses Week throughout Canada. I want to pay tribute to Ontario nurses for the tremendous job they do. Without question, nurses are one of our most important partners in health care. Their dedication, professionalism and concern for their patients’ wellbeing permeate every aspect of health care in this province.

The new breast screening program and expansion of services in Sudbury, as well as the other announcements which will follow shortly, are all in keeping with the health goals recommended by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy and adopted by the government, including shifting the emphasis from treatment after the fact to health promotion and disease prevention, increasing the number of years of good health for Ontarians by reducing illness, disability and premature death and providing accessible, appropriate health services for all.

What we have built and achieved in health care in Ontario is extremely good; we are proud of it and, by working together with all our partners in health, will make it even better. We will rely not only on new technology, but also on health promotion and disease prevention, to progressively improve our health status. Our overriding goal is to achieve a healthier future for all Ontarians.

In the weeks ahead, I will be announcing further details of my ministry’s specialty care plan, a plan that will reflect the health goals of this government, a plan that, I am confident, will ensure that Ontarians have effective, quality health care as close to home as possible.

Hon Mr Fontaine: I am pleased to announce today a $1-million grant to the northeastern Ontario oncology program to establish a cancer research centre in Sudbury. This centre, the first of its kind in northeastern Ontario, will have laboratory facilities at Laurentian University and at the northeastern Ontario regional cancer centre at Laurentian Hospital, which is scheduled to open next summer, as referred to by my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan).

The northeastern Ontario oncology program is affiliated with the faculty of medicine at the University of Ottawa and is collaborating with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, Laurentian University and the research division of Inco Ltd.

The new research facility would enable Sudbury, now designated as a health referral centre for residents of northern Ontario, to attract greater expertise and provide a wider range of health and health-related services.

The funding of the research centre will be provided in instalments over a five-year period, with an initial capital grant of $250,000 for startup equipment. The Sudbury centre will complement the network of other such centres located throughout the province, bringing the total number to eight.

My ministry welcomes the opportunity to support Dr Robert Corringham, the director of the northeastern Ontario oncology program, in his efforts to initiate collaborative research focusing on cancer prevention and on the environmental factors which may be related to cancer and which are unique to the north.

I am confident the research centre will aid Dr Corringham’s efforts to recruit specialized staff and ultimately enhance the quality of health care to northern Ontario residents.

Funding for the northeastern Ontario regional cancer centre and the cancer research centre reflects our commitment to provide effective health care programs and services for northerners as close to their homes as possible.

RECREATION FACILITIES

Hon Mr O’Neil: I rise to inform honourable members of the second round of grants my ministry is providing to municipalities and community groups under the new recreation facilities and capital conservation programs for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

Members will recall that I announced phase 1 of this year’s series in January. I am happy to announce today that a further $7 million of lottery funding is being made available for a further 152 projects. This will bring the total number of projects assisted this year to 424, at a total cost of almost $28 million.

In keeping with the long-term health care directions this government articulated in the recent throne speech, I wish to note that these projects will greatly enhance the health and lifestyle choices of all Ontarians.

Recreation is a key to wellness and an essential part of a healthy, fulfilling lifestyle. One quarter of Ontario’s health care budget is spent treating preventable, lifestyle-related diseases; high quality recreation programs have been shown to reduce these costs by half.

These projects are helping our communities to build and maintain the recreational infrastructure that the people of Ontario depend upon.

These are the places where Ontario’s future Olympians will begin their development. Above all, these recreation centres, swimming pools and hockey rinks are at the heart of any community. It is here young Ontarians build sportsmanship, character and the future of Ontario.

I am honoured that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is able to play a role in shaping that future.

As we become an increasingly active society, these facilities are becoming ever more important to the lives and health of the people of the towns and cities across the province.

RESPONSES

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Laughren: I am pleased to respond to the minister’s announcement about the $1 million for the cancer research centre in Sudbury.

The job of heading up that research centre was advertised all across Canada and there were no applications in this country. At the same time, recruiting was being done at the University of Heidelberg in West Germany. A very qualified person, Dr Ho, was found, who indicated an interest in coming to Sudbury and has been stymied by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), despite the fact that existing legislation would allow her to intervene and accredit Dr Ho from the University of Heidelberg, has refused to do so.

While we appreciate the $1 million for the cancer research centre, it is terribly important that a research director be found who wants to come to Sudbury, has the credentials to do the job and whom the people in Sudbury want to have in place at that research centre. It is time the minister got into the game and approved Dr Ho’s credentials to practise and direct the research centre in Sudbury.

Miss Martel: I want to follow up on what my colleague the member for Nickel Belt has said concerning the situation in Sudbury. Both my colleague and I have met with Dr Corringham. I know the minister herself has as well. He is greatly concerned that the program of oncology and the program of research in Sudbury will be for nought if they cannot have Dr Ho come to Sudbury to set up that system there.

They have repeatedly approached her ministry and asked for aid with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to use her power under the act to allow him entrance here. It is ridiculous that we have had no applications across Canada and that we have a highly qualified applicant who wants to come and cannot because of the restrictions placed by the college. It is imperative her ministry do something about that in the very near future.

Just following up on the second announcement that was made concerning the $3.3 million for up-to-date, state-of-the-art equipment, I want to thank the minister for her generosity in that regard. I am surprised there has been no announcement regarding the 60 chronic care beds that were announced for the same hospital over three years ago. She will know well that the hospital is concerned that without those beds, there will not be any efficient expansion of the oncology program that is required.

Mr Reville: I am responding to the Minister of Health’s statement today. I am prepared to predict that we will see the Minister of Health frequently in ministerial statements as she attempts to convince the people of Ontario that she is indeed in command of the health care system.

In terms of the new breast screening program, I think it is important for people to realize what the program is and what it is not. What it clearly is not is health promotion and disease prevention; it is an early detection system. The minister will know, I am sure, that breast cancer is associated with high fat diets and the consumption of alcohol. Unless those dietary and lifestyle problems are addressed, we will continue to detect high levels of breast cancer in women.

The other thing that should be noted is that the mortality rates in terms of breast cancer have not changed in the last 35 years. Another point that has to be looked at with great concern is whether we are going to be sentencing a lot of women aged 50 to 64 to radical mastectomies, because we know that the practice patterns of our surgeons are to rely far too heavily on radical surgery instead of the more, in quotes, conservative kind of surgery.

I think we need to look carefully at these announcements. The minister is trying to suggest she is moving to illness prevention and health promotion. She is not doing it with this announcement and I think it is wrong for her to be trying to trick us into believing that she is.

RECREATION FACILITIES

Mr Farnan: In response to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil), there was some embarrassment on the minister’s

part in his announcement today, and little wonder. While he announced some projects, we all know there are many worthwhile projects not funded by his ministry. I would like to know when he is going to recognize this in the House.

It is embarrassing for the minister that he leads a ministry lacking in courage to make tough decisions. He has done nothing on rails-to-trails. He is talking about preventive health care, but on the big issues that demand tough decisions, an area where he can go in and say to the municipalities, “We need co-operation and therefore we are going to give provincial leadership to have continuous trails,” we are not getting that kind of leadership from this ministry. This odd announcement, worthwhile as it is, is really a recognition that there are some projects, but many more are not being funded.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Eves: I rise to comment on both the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and the statement by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) this afternoon.

First, on the statement by the Minister of Health, although it is a welcome initiative, I believe the focus she is placing on mammography in Ontario may be somewhat misguided. I would like to quote a few facts, first of all from the Canadian Cancer Foundation. The Canadian Cancer Foundation states: “Breast cancer kills 3,500 Canadians a year and is the major cause of cancer deaths among women. It is the leading cause of death in women from all causes between the ages of 35 and 54 years of age.”

I also want to quote from the Canadian Women’s Breast Cancer Foundation, which states that nowadays mammography uses very small amounts of radiation, making testing very safe, as opposed to what perhaps was the case in the past. It is recommending base line testing for all women between the ages of 35 and 40 years of age so that they can have later comparison tests, and that women between 40 and 49 should have a test every one to three years, depending on their relative risk of developing the disease.

I would also like to refer the minister to a recent publication, the New England Journal of Medicine, dated 30 March 1989. They too come to the same conclusions as these two other bodies, that testing in younger women certainly should take place and should not be restricted to women in the 50-year-old to 64-year-old age group.

If the minister will look at the chart, with which I am sure she is very familiar this being a national cancer survey, in the United States per 100,000 population the graph rises very dramatically for women between the ages of 35 and 50. In fact, that is perhaps the most dramatic rise on the graph, as opposed to women over 50 years of age. That is not saying they do not have a serious problem. They certainly do and I will come to that in a minute, but I do not think the minister should be excluding younger women from this program.

Nor should she be excluding older women from the program. Statistics provided by the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation show that in the minister’s target group that she has announced today for testing, 50-year-old to 64-year-old women, the mortality rate for breast cancer in this sample year, which was 1986, represented 34.2 per cent of the deaths. However, women 65 years of age and over represented 49.49 per cent mortality with respect to breast cancer being the cause of death.

I ask the minister to rethink her program a bit. I appreciate the work she is doing, but I hope I am not correct in assuming she is doing this particular group because of financial considerations as opposed to health considerations. I think it is very important that younger women be provided this base line testing as well, and I think it is just as important, as she will see from the mortality rate, that older women have this opportunity also.

If I may now address the statement made by the Minister of Northern Development this afternoon, this indeed is a welcome announcement, but it is an announcement that has already been made. The people in northeastern Ontario and the Sudbury area have known about this $1-million funding from the Ministry of Northern Development for some period of time.

The minister shakes his head, but I can tell him that we were there. Our caucus was in Sudbury from 3 to 5 April. It certainly was public knowledge long before our visit there that this $1-million funding was coming.

I think the problem we have is exactly the problem that has been stated by the members who spoke before me, the problem I pointed out to the Minister of Health several weeks ago in the Legislature. Dr Corringham is very concerned that if the minister does not intervene and either bring pressure to bear, or exercise the authority she has under

section 3 of the Health Disciplines Act to make the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario give the necessary accreditation that is due, and I believe deserved, to Dr Ho and to Dr Bozek, who I understand has now left this country and gone back to England because he could not get certification here, this funding will mean absolutely nothing; that is if there are no people there to head the research foundation at the oncology clinic for northeastern Ontario.

Again, we ask the minister to use her good offices to intervene and see to it that Dr Ho and Dr Bozek can be accredited so that the cancer treatment centre for northeastern Ontario can indeed become a reality.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr B. Rae: The Treasurer himself has contributed to an enormous amount of speculation this weekend with respect to the budget plans he has for next week; in particular, the statements he made with respect to a tax on payroll to replace and indeed even add more revenues to the Ontario revenue system than would otherwise be the case from Ontario health insurance plan premiums.

Given that there is a general consensus in Ontario that OHIP premiums are extremely regressive, I wonder why the Treasurer would be contemplating the introduction of a tax at this stage of the business cycle, when he himself has said we are in danger of heading into a recession, when there is very substantial evidence that a tax on payroll of 1.5 per cent, 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent would be an incentive for employers not to hire and not to pay their employees any more money. Why would he be contemplating that kind of tax?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I hope the honourable member is aware that the comments made in response to questions from the media were not an indication of anything that is in the budget. They were in response to questions put to me; for example, about the commitment this party has made for a number of years now. We do agree that the approach to funding medicare from premiums is regressive and we have indicated that when we feel we can we will phase them down and eliminate them. In each of the previous four budgets, when asked about that promise, we have said the promise stands and that we will fulfil it when we feel we can.

This has led a number of thoughtful media people to say: ‘If you’re going to do it, what about increases in personal income tax? What about an increase in corporation tax? What about a new lottery?” -- I thought that was a very interesting suggestion -- “What about a payroll tax?” since I have already indicated Mr Wilson will not provide any flexibility in the personal income tax collection agreement, a matter the honourable member raised in question period last week.

Mr B. Rae: This is not an academic discussion. Is the Treasurer telling us he is going to give us an assurance today that he is not contemplating the introduction of a payroll tax?

Hon R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr B. Rae: Let me try again then. There are studies available saying that a payroll tax of the size that, in response to questions, is apparently being contemplated will increase unemployment and is not a progressive tax as it will affect the take-home pay of many employees and employers will be reluctant to offer their employees any more money in bargaining because they are going to get taxed on it.

I wonder if the Treasurer could at least give us this assurance: Mr Wilson let the banks off free and Mr Wilson let the speculators off free. Instead of toying around with a payroll tax on small business in this province, I wonder why the Treasurer is not looking at a tax on speculation and why he is not looking at a tax on our financial institutions in order to get him off this OHIP premium roulette wheel.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Although I find it a contrary indication, one of the pieces of paper that might be associated with such a review is the fact that the New Democratic Party government in Manitoba used this as an innovative way to pay for its costs of government.

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr B. Rae: I was only going to say, “Don’t cry for me, Manitoba,” Mr Speaker.

BRIDGE REPAIRS

Mr B. Rae: My question is for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton). The Premier will no doubt have seen, or if he has not seen it I will inform him about it, a very disturbing

article in the Toronto Star today in which a senior member of the Ministry of Transportation is quoted, as is a recently retired member of the public service, Ken Kleinsteiber.

Mr Kleinsteiber is quoted as saying that there are several bridges, indeed dozens of bridges, in the province that are in dangerously bad repair. The

article says, “’Some bridges are so weak they legally shouldn’t even have school buses crossing them,’ Kleinsteiber said, ‘but in some cases, I’d have to say they are (being used by school buses).’”

I wonder if the Premier can explain how this disastrous state of affairs could have happened in the province.

Hon Mr Peterson: I will advise my honourable colleague of the member’s questions in this regard and I am sure he will be happy to make a full report to him.

Mr B. Rae: The evidence that is given, again not by members of the New Democratic Party in particular but indeed by senior public servants, is that, quoting again from the article, “the problem bridges have been caught short by provincial limits on road and bridge repair subsidies, Holowka said.” Mr Holowka is now the Ministry of Transportation’s head of bridge approval.

Can the Premier explain why he would have brought in a policy of cutbacks? He turns around and blames the feds for their cutbacks; before they even do that, he does exactly the same thing to municipalities. The evidence now from his own staff and from retired members of the public service is that this is not simply something which is saving money to the province; it is something threatening the health and safety of the people of this province, because of the threat to the infrastructure and to bridges which people have to travel over.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think my honourable friend’s facts are wrong with respect to the transfers and with respect to the support for roads, bridges and infrastructure. As I said, I will tell my honourable colleague of his concerns and he will report to him fully.

Mr B. Rae: If I could just recount the absurdity of this situation. Leroy Smith, who lives in Elgin county, had an accident back in 1981 and had to set up a business in his own home. He then found that the Tates Bridge, which was right next to his house and which in fact was the access to his house, had to be closed because it was no longer safe for travel. Mr Smith is now facing a situation where half of his business has been cut off. He is a disabled person in his own home. Half of his own business has been cut off. People have to travel an extra 30 or 40 miles to get to his home.

I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on this kind of situation in Elgin county. The situation is occurring throughout southwestern Ontario, as the Premier may or may not be aware. It is a very serious situation. It affects people’s incomes. It affects people’s livelihood. It also affects people’s health and safety. That is the impact of the freeze, which he imposed well before Michael Wilson did anything up in Ottawa.

Hon Mr Peterson: The member for Middlesex (Mr Reycraft) tells me that this bridge is jointly owned by the counties of Middlesex and Elgin and that it was condemned, I gather, by the local county engineers.

As I said, I will take my honourable friend’s comments and refer them to the minister. I will tell him of his desire to increase spending and cut taxes all at the same time.

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware that in an

article that appeared today in the Globe and Mail a statement was made to the effect that hazardous toxic waste was being blended with fuel oil and sold illegally in Ontario. Last month, the Ministry of the Environment staff conducted a series of what were called crackdowns on illegal waste at various border points between Canada and the United States. I wonder if the minister can tell us if his staff were checking for the illegal shipments of this kind of blended toxic fuel; and if they were not checking for it why they were not checking for it.

Hon Mr Bradley: The staff of our investigation and enforcement branch, of course, has been conducting investigations for some period of time now. I know the member would not want me to go into the intricate detail of those investigations because, having been a minister, he will know he does not want to adversely impact upon those investigations. But I can tell him that at the border raids and at previous border checks we had looked at a variety of problems that we anticipated. For instance, involved in these checks was primarily the Ministry of the Environment investigations and enforcement branch, but also the Ontario Provincial Police was involved.

In addition to that, we had co-operation from the American authorities on both sides of the border; when we did it with New York state, for instance, and when we did it with Michigan as well, we had co-operation from them. We funnelled information to all relevant departments of government related to that which was being checked. I can say in a general sense to the member that we looked at virtually every possible violation that could be occurring upon the crossing of a border.

Mr Brandt: I too am aware of the fact that there have been co-operative undertakings between the OPP and the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States as well as his own ministry, but as the minister is probably aware, it has been suggested that these particular shipments have been going on for some time now.

The burning of this particular type of blended fuel, when mixed with the toxic contaminants that are contained in that particular fuel, does emit dioxins and furans. It is extremely dangerous. Why was there never any word from his ministry with respect to this matter, any checks that have been made or any investigation that has been carried out? And why did it have to take a Globe and Mail reporter to identify this entire matter having taken place between the United States and Canada? Why was his ministry not up on it?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member would know, in fact, that there had been some considerable public interest in both the checks that took place in the member’s own riding, Sarnia, and Port Huron, Windsor and Detroit; then along the Niagara River and the St Lawrence River, and that there was a revelation of what we were looking for. Of course, the desire is to build that kind of deterrent effect that I know the member himself would want to see.

I can tell him that the most recent investigations took place on 11 April to 13 April at all the Niagara River crossings, and on 18 and 20 April at the St Lawrence River crossings. We checked 383 trucks. There were, first of all, over 40 enforcement officers on the site involved in the operation. We checked the trucks for waste and fuel haulers. I think that gets into the general area the member was interested in. We took 113 samples for more detailed analysis, which we thought would be important. The first results of the more detailed analysis are now coming in.

For instance, I was at the Queenston one. I was looking at a steel hauler coming across the border, and at the time where there was steel one could see some liquid coming out of the bottom. It must have been liquid steel that the person was bringing across the border. That is one where we have found, in fact, that some material has been identified. Similarly, the Michigan check last year identified some of those problems.

I can tell the member that there were 18 charges laid on the spot for environmental offences. In addition to that, because it is interested in the condition of the vehicles, the OPP laid a number of charges as to transportation as per the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. I know that at Gananoque, for instance, two trucks were turned around and sent back because they did not have the proper papers to come across the border.

I know the member is particularly interested in all of these; and in his area he would be because it is a crossing point, and in all of Ontario he would be. We have in fact been investigating this for some period of time. We believe that we are building the kind of case which is going to be a very powerful case once we get to the courts.

Mr Brandt: Recently the minister issued a press release indicating that two shipments of pathological waste were in fact stopped at the border and were refused entry into Ontario. Pathological waste, in my view, is somewhat less severe than this type of toxic, contaminated blended gasoline and other fuel oils that appear to have been coming into Ontario, in that the long-term effects can be far more hazardous from this type of load.

I noticed nothing in the minister’s statement, in the earlier press release, that indicated he had stopped this type of shipment. Now the minister is aware that there are thousands of dollars in profitability to anyone who wants to illegally engage in this kind of activity. The number of barrels of this type of contaminated oil that can be blended in with a truckload of oil or gasoline coming into Canada can produce a tremendously hazardous kind of substance.

It appears that either the ministry was asleep at the switch or the type of investigation the minister has been assuring us has been carried out has in fact not been carried out. We would not have known about this other than for a Globe and Mail story. What is his ministry planning on doing about it, and is he going to lay all of the necessary charges to all of the individuals involved in these cases?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, I should address the comment the member made about pathological waste. I think there are a lot of people in this province and in this country who would think that pathological waste is indeed a serious matter when it is crossing the border. I do not think we should downplay that -- I do not think the member was attempting to downplay it, quite frankly -- but I want to assure people that we consider that to be an important waste as well.

I want to tell the member that we are of course in the process of an investigation. You do not tell the people you are investigating that you are investigating them. But people were aware, in fact, of the border checks that took place last year along the St Clair River crossing, the Detroit Rivet crossing and along the St Lawrence River and the Niagara River. Certainly there was considerable public interest and media interest in those. They are aware of some of the charges that were forthcoming from that and some of the further investigative work that is being done.

I can assure the member that, on an international basis, the co-operation of Michigan and New York has been very significant in terms of tracing the problems.

We will be in a situation where we will have people being checked at the border in some cases, checked at the truck stops where they must stop to be weighed, the weigh stations, and checked again at the places where they are bringing the stuff with which they are crossing the border.

We believe that a lot of the investigative work our investigations and enforcement branch is doing, along with a lot of other enforcement agencies, is going to pay off and the member will see that very soon.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Brandt: I want to get back to the Treasurer and the possibility of a payroll tax. The Treasurer did say in response to a media question, and I quote him directly, “We’ve talked about the possibility,” as it relates to this payroll tax.

Since the Treasurer indicated that “We’ve talked about the possibility” and that it is at least a matter under consideration by him and his ministry for inclusion in either this or an upcoming budget at some future point, knowing how carefully he reviews all of the matters and the details that are included in his budget, would he share with this House any studies he has taken on what the impact would be of the inclusion of this two per cent or more payroll tax he is now speculating about?

Hon Mr Kerrio: Do you have a fishing licence, Andy?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the interjection from my honourable friend, which is much more useful than what is passing through my own mind.

I think the honourable member indicated in his question quite clearly that I had said we had talked about the tax. We do not keep tapes for publication of our discussions around the boardroom table, but I can assure the member that any public documents that are now available or might possibly be available in the future will be public documents.

Mr Brandt: I want, hopefully with this question, to dissuade the Treasurer from even considering this type of regressive tax. I would like to share with the Treasurer the fact that 92 per cent of all new businesses are made up of groups that have under 20 employees in total. Of all the jobs created in Ontario, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) is so well aware, 60 per cent are created by these small businesses that have under 20 employees. By definition, they are very small firms indeed.

These 372,000 small businesses would have to pay for this new payroll tax, if the Treasurer decides to introduce it. I am suggesting, by way of this question, that he should not decide to introduce it. Many of those 372,000 businesses are not profitable. They do not make a profit now. They would lose even more money under his proposal to bring in any form of payroll tax.

The Deputy Speaker: The question is?

Mr Brandt: I am glad you asked me, Mr Speaker, because I was just getting to it. Has the Treasurer considered the impact that such a payroll tax would have on marginal small businesses in Ontario?

Hon R. F. Nixon: We have also considered the difficulty in financing an expanded requirement for medicare, which the honourable member and all members support. They realize that the residents of Ontario require and very properly demand a high level of service from their medical practitioners and hospitals.

The Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) does, as the member would agree, an exemplary job of administering our medicare program in the most efficient and practical way. But even under those circumstances, it is growing at a rate of 10 to 11 percent on a base that is close to $14 billion.

The honourable member, day by day, brings to the attention of the Minister of Health the inadequacies of funding. I agree that we should, and must, have in the future a stronger basis for that kind of financing. We know what Michael Wilson has done to us, we know the rate of growth of our requirements for medical service, and so I think the honourable member might give us some concrete proposals as to how we could improve the financing of medicare. He has indicated how we should not do it.

Mr Brandt: The Treasurer points out that there is a slowdown in the transfer grants from the federal government to the provincial government. I would point out to the Treasurer that a good portion of the money that he claims to have lost from the federal government he has made up as a direct result of no transfers to municipalities in certain categories. They have been able to determine that some $700 million in shortfalls has taken place as a result of zero increases in categories like the unconditional grant program.

I would like to say to the Treasurer that at the very time when most of the economic prognostications would point to somewhat slower economic growth for Ontario and for Canada, at least over the short term, and that this impact will have a very direct relationship to the level of consumer spending that will take place in the economy over the next while, does he not see the relationship between his proposed tax -- if he does bring it in in his budget -- and the problems that industries and businesses are already going to have with the slowdown in the economy?

Can he not see that those two factors will work to create shutdowns, job losses and an acceleration in the slowdown of the economy as a result of that?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member certainly makes a good point, and that is the sort of thing that has to be considered by the Treasurer and the people who advise him, whether it is myself or another person. It is simply difficult to know how to fund the programs in a jurisdiction like Ontario, where there is rapidly expanding requirement and cost even for the programs that are established now, without moving into an area of new and alternative processes.

It is a matter of judgment, and there are many alternatives that could be used. We could even increase the premiums themselves. Other jurisdictions have done that. But in a previous exchange with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), I agreed with him that the premiums themselves are regressive. Of course, the commitment made by our party on the formation of the government stands, and we have never indicated that we do not intend to keep it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162. Mrs Desjardin appeared in Windsor before the standing committee on resources development and told this story. She was hurt in 1985 at Dainty Foods while lifting a 50-pound bag of rice. After three wrist operations, doctors at Downsview Rehabilitation Centre told her there was nothing more that could be done and she was awarded a 14 percent pension, which equals $140 a month.

While at Downsview, she received a vocational assessment and was told she was good working with numbers. Having no money except for her monthly pension, she applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a supplement to make up her lost wages. She was told she could be a bookkeeper and earn $337 a week. As this was more than the $230 a week she had earned while at Dainty Foods, she was not given any money at all from the Workers’ Compensation Board, nor was she retrained in order to become a bookkeeper.

I would like to ask the minister how Bill 162 will protect Mrs Desjardin and others who suffer under this current practice of deeming at the board?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think my friend the member for Sudbury East will realize that the example that she raised here in question period is probably one that we will be able to discuss and expand on as we move through clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 162, but I could just give her a foretaste of the discussions as I think they are going to unfold.

In the bill as it is currently drafted, the requirement of the board is to ensure that considerations of ability to earn post-injury are based on the suitability and availability of employment. I think we are going to have good discussions on how we can refine those words to ensure that the board uses good judgement rather than simply arbitrarily considering that a worker is able to earn so much money at such-and-such a job.

In that regard, I want to tell my friend the member for Sudbury East that those determinations, as they are set out in the current act, allow the policy simply to be determined by the board. In Bill 162, as it is currently constituted, the parameters within which the board would work, the context in which it would exercise its judgment, would be set out in regulations which would be passed by the government and subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament.

Miss Martel: We will be raising other cases besides Mrs Desjardin’s during the course of this sitting.

Let me say that when questioned, groups from the labour movement, the injured workers groups and the legal clinics said, first, that the current practice of deeming is enshrined in this bill, giving it the stamp of approval from the government. Second, there are no protections at all in the current bill to stop the practice. Third, when told that the protections from workers would come via the regulations written by the board, none of those groups was very happy or comfortable. They said that all that would do would be to expand the process and the current practice of deeming even further.

The Deputy Speaker: And the question is?

Miss Martel: Why is the minister so intent on putting in place this unfair and unjust system, as it now currently works at the board, which will only be given the stamp of approval under his new bill?

Hon Mr Sorbara: If the member is suggesting that we are putting into place a system which will allow what she refers to as deeming, I simply want to tell her that I believe she is wrong and I look forward to discussing the particular provisions in committee. I said at the outset that if we need to refine the language, I look forward to that process in committee.

As to her question of why we are proceeding, it is for the very same reason that the New Democratic government in Saskatchewan proceeded in 1979. It is for the very same reason that some five years ago, the government in Quebec instituted a dual award system and that other governments in Canada have done that, with the sole difference that the bill here in Ontario is far more generous and far more responsive to the needs of injured workers than any legislation that stands as a precedent.

LOT LEVIES

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last December, I asked the minister what impact a proposed lot levy tax would have on housing in Ontario. She was unable to provide me with an answer at that time because, incredibly, no impact analysis had been done when the discussion paper was released.

It is now pretty clear that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) is going to go ahead with this housing tax. Given the time that has gone by and the obvious commitment of this government to proceed, I again ask the minister if an impact analysis has been done and, if so, if she is prepared to share that analysis with this House.

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows that this entire question is being considered by the Treasurer and Minister of Economics, and I suggest that the member ask him that question.

Mr Harris: Since the minister does not particularly want to redirect the question, I will come back with a supplementary to the minister, because I am absolutely astounded that, as the ministry responsible for housing, her ministry is not doing impact studies on this or has no knowledge of impact studies being done.

This new housing supply tax is expected to be about $165 million next year. Given the 50-to-1 ratio of existing homes to new ones -- I have checked these figures with the industry -- if the $165-million figure is the right one, it will now add $8 billion to the affordability of the existing stock of housing in this province.

Again, I would ask the minister why, if she has not done an impact study for the Treasurer, with her vested interest in housing she has not undertaken a study of what this tax means to housing affordability.

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows very well the concern I have about housing affordability in this province and the variety of policy levers and others that we have undertaken to address it. What I said in the first question was that this work is being done. All questions of taxation are being done by the Ministry of Treasury and Economies, as is appropriate. I think it is inappropriate for the member opposite to assume that all of us in this cabinet are not concerned about every major decision that is made in this province and its impact on all the people of the province.

I understand the member opposite was for a while a member of cabinet and does understand something about cabinet government. What we have done in the province is made sure that many of the sources of power we have to make sure that people have housing choices are being used, and I think the member opposite should ask this question of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

CHILD CARE

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, concerning child care in Metropolitan Toronto. As the minister is aware, Metro council estimated there would be a $28.4-million shortfall this year in funding for new day care centres, because of higher costs in the Metro area. Council has reacted by approving a rate increase of only four per cent to day care operators, rather than the 10 percent they originally deemed necessary.

Advocates and parents alike fear that the latest decision will further threaten the supply of affordable child care in Metro Toronto. May I ask the minister how Metro Toronto’s decision will impact the province’s ability to meet the targets set under New Directions for Child Care?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The targets we set two years ago, which are now in the third year of implementation, have not only been met but in fact have been exceeded, and that is right across the province, including here in Metro Toronto. I would draw to the honourable member’s attention that with the additional 1,000 subsidized spaces which Metro has agreed to accept from the province this year, its total number of subsidized spaces since 1985 has grown from roughly 10,000 up to 19,000. That is almost a doubling.

I would also point out to the honourable member that the total amount of dollars which we have flowed to Metro in terms of increases for this year would be in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. So I can only presume that Metro is realizing, as the province has realized, that it has to manage with the resources that are available for it. It simply cannot go out and accept higher and higher costs when it does not have the resources to meet those higher and higher costs.

Ms Poole: I have a supplementary about the rate increases. In 1988 and 1989, Metro asked for rate increases in purchase-of-service centres that are much greater than the cost-of-living increases provided by the province. The reason given was the need to raise the salaries of day care teachers.

While I am very sympathetic to that cause, does the minister feel that Metro’s position is justified, given the other enormous pressures we have on day care in Toronto?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that day care advocates in the various municipalities came to us a few years ago and indicated to us the dilemma between the need to raise the incomes of day care workers and the impact that would have, the increase in fees to parents who would be unable to afford them. On the basis of that, this government decided in 1988 to allocate across Ontario $60 million in direct grants to day care centres. Of that, $16 million went to Metro and that $16 million resulted in an average increase to day care workers of $3,500 annually.

That still means we have a way to go, but that was a very significant increase in one year. That same amount of money will flow this year with a cost-of-living increase, and the whole intent of that was to enable the day care centres in Metro to raise their salaries without impacting upon the fees to parents. If they choose to raise them even more beyond that, then that is something they are going to have to find in terms of those resources.

UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS

Mr Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will be aware that on 12 December 1988 his government opted to freeze the grants to Ontario municipalities at their 1988 level; in other words, no increase on unconditional grants to municipalities across Ontario for 1989. The minister should be cognizant that while hurting all municipalities in Ontario, that kind of impact is more severely felt up north, where people are talking now in terms of $80 per household in municipal taxes just to cover the rate of some 4.6 per cent inflation.

Will the minister make the commitment that he will hand the tools over, in other words adjust the unconditional grants so that the municipalities can provide in a more fair and equitable fashion the essential services that are so badly needed, especially in the northern part of the province?

Hon Mr Eakins: I think we have pointed out on a number of occasions that the unconditional grants are simply one form of helping municipalities. There are many other ways of assisting municipalities. My colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) announced another $7 million today.

The unconditional grants have been held at the same; they have not been reduced. The member must remember that the conditional grants have been increased generally across the province by some 5.4 percent.

I would say to the member that we have also set up with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario a means of reviewing the conditional and unconditional grants, taking into consideration the remarks the Provincial Auditor made in his report.

Mr Pouliot: When the minister mentions so candidly that those unconditional grants represent only a portion, surely he must be aware that they represent a larger portion than what he has in mind. We are talking here about 20.8 percent of the cost of operating a municipality for general purposes.

Consequently, the people of the north are getting a little tired of being the fall guys on the basis that the government is not honouring its commitment. What we are asking the minister to do is just to come across clean and say, “Yes, I will do what is right and I will increase those unconditional grants by the rate of inflation every year.”

Hon Mr Eakins: The honourable member knows that I have visited the north many times. I was there last weekend, and I am sure he was there. I will be there this weekend. I am delighted to see also that this weekend the Provincial Auditor is on the program at the meeting of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities in Blind River.

The member will remember too that in reviewing our grants we have to consider some of the areas that the auditor pointed out to us. For instance, the auditor said that too many municipalities received the resource equalization grant and therefore should be re-examined. He also pointed out, and this is one of the reasons he is going to be in Blind River this weekend, that the northern support grant warrants reassessment.

We believe that the north requires the 18 per cent assistance that is received from this government, and even though the auditor has asked that this be reviewed, I can assure the honourable member that in meeting with the people, we are considering many of the concerns they have raised and we are going to make sure that the northern people are looked after as well as anywhere else. I can assure the member of that.

INSURANCE COMPANY BANKRUPTCY

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the Guardall bankruptcy. I asked the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) last week, but he professed ignorance and fobbed it off on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, indicating that he was carrying out a complete investigation of this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Mr Runciman: Undoubtedly the minister is aware that the demise of this company has left thousands and thousands of Ontario motorists out in the cold. They purchased extended warranty contracts, something his ministry encourages consumers to do, and now those contracts are useless.

Will the minister tell the House why his government waited until March to shut down Guardall, since it had suspended the licence of Guardall’s underwriting insurance company almost two months beforehand?

Hon Mr Wrye: That is a question on insurance, and I will refer it to the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon Mr Elston: First of all, I thank the honourable member for addressing the question in the way he did, because it gives me a chance, of course, to say he was wrong in indicating that I fobbed it off on anybody. I stood up and I indicated what had gone on.

I will tell the member again that with respect to his particular question, he would want to know that there was a different insurance company that was carrying on the sureties activities as of 1 January 1989. It was not Ontario General Insurance Co that was particularly writing new business at that time. That provides the member with at least a partial answer to his current question. I would ask him to have a little more precision in his

preamble to his supplementary.

Mr Runciman: That kind of response is not going to provide much solace for the thousands of Ontario consumers who have lost millions of dollars over this fiasco.

Since the minister is now responding, we can deal with the insurance company angle of this. His ministry was notified by the president of Symons General Insurance twice when Mr Ravinsky took over the books and control of that company, a gentleman with no experience in operations of an insurance company, a man who, just four years previous to buying this company, had gone personally bankrupt, and I have some other questions with respect to his personal history which I will not get into this afternoon.

The minister allowed this gentleman to buy the company and that is open to question, but the failure to monitor its operations following his purchase defies explanation. The trustee says that $12 million has been improperly removed from this company and thousands of consumers, people his colleague is supposed to protect, were left out in the cold. It seems to me the government was negligent if not incompetent in respect to this. There is some degree of responsibility upon the minister’s shoulders.

I am just wondering if the government is considering participating in any compensation to the thousands of consumers who have lost money in this fiasco.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman should know, if he does not already know, that the department of insurance does not have a veto on who purchases insurance companies on the basis of the sort of background material he has provided.

We do take a look at the material that has an ongoing effect on the operation of the company. I can tell the honourable gentleman, if he and his colleagues care to listen, that there was a five-year management deal that had been worked out by a company which manages not only the insurance company that was subject to winding up, but also other ongoing insurance companies.

Mr Runciman: They left in 1987 and notified your ministry twice and you didn’t do anything about it.

Hon Mr Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that from my point of view he is not accurate when he says that there was negligence on the part of the insurance people in the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

The short answer to the question about who is compensating is that the honourable gentleman would like to know that the activities of the receiver who has been appointed are ongoing and that he is looking to the assets as to sufficiency with respect to meeting the ongoing needs of the company. The member is obviously trying to stir up problems before there are indications that problems are actually in existence.

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr Elliot: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In the latter part of last year this government introduced the workplace hazardous materials information system or, as it is better known, WHMIS.

The backbone of this legislation was the recognition of the worker’s right to know what types of materials he or she was dealing with and what to do if there was a problem. In order to comply with the worker’s right to know, a key component of the WHMIS legislation involved the production and distribution of educational materials that were paid for by the Ministry of Labour. As I understand it, these materials were developed to ensure that workers recognized and understood what WHMIS meant to them.

Would the minister please clarify for this House what the role of his ministry was in the production of these materials, and does he consider that money well spent?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to thank the member for Halton North who, as a distinguished educator, takes an interest in the WHMIS program and I want to thank him for advising me that he was going to raise this matter in the House.

I think his question really is twofold. The first is. how were funds provided? What role did the Ministry of Labour play in the development of the WHMIS package?

What we did, I tell my friend the member for Halton North, is provide a grant to the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The reason we did that is because that board is really a tripartite body made up of representatives from labour, business and the workers’ compensation system. So it has all the stakeholders in the workplace there.

The development of those materials has been a phenomenal success. They have been made available to large and small businesses. Some of the largest enterprises in Ontario have used these materials for the delivery of the WHMIS program in their workplaces. Indeed, there are businesses from all over Canada -- WHMIS is really a Canadian initiative -- that are now asking Ontario to use these materials, so they have been in big businesses, small businesses, community projects. They really have been everywhere.

By the way, I should add that the grant, which if memory serves me well was about $400,000, has provided as well for the training of instructors who are available to small businesses to implement WHMIS, the workplace hazardous materials information system.

Mr Elliot: I have a supplementary. I also understand these educational materials have sold very well indeed and have in fact become very popular with manufacturers, as the minister just said, despite the presence of alternative educational programs available from the private sector.

Would the minister tell this House what the ministry plans to do with the excess funds generated by the surprising popularity of these materials? Will it use these funds to provide further training in either related or separate areas of occupational health and safety, which is so urgently needed by the working people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The member for Halton North points out that this is really very good news for the government, because having made this investment in producing materials for educational purposes and providing them to workplace parties at a very low cost, we have actually made a substantial profit.

I want to point out that the profit is not directly the property of the Ministry of Labour. As I said, we provided a grant to the Occupational Health and Safety Education Authority, and now the authority, which is made up of representatives of labour and management, is considering how it can utilize these funds and leverage these funds to enhance even further the WHMIS training package.

They are thinking of things like the generation of third-language training materials and the use of programming on TVOntario to deliver the safety message of WHMIS even further. There are a variety of other things, but suffice it to say that it will be an administrative decision of the health and safety authority of the board that will be the final determiner of how those moneys are used.

HOME CARE

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the outreach and attendant care program funded by his ministry.

I would like to ask the minister about two specific cases. Rita Dupuis of my riding has had multiple sclerosis for 15 years. For 10 of those years she has been in a wheelchair. She was recently in the hospital and released from hospital after rehabilitation on the understanding that she would have home support programs through the outreach program run by the Cerebral Palsy Association of Windsor and Essex County.

Scott Mikec is age 18. He is quadriplegic. He was in hospital for a year receiving rehab, and was released and went home on the condition that he would receive assistance at home so he could get ready to go to school.

Both of these people are at home now and they are on a waiting list for the outreach program. They have been on the waiting list for several months. It looks like they are going to be on the waiting list for several more months, since no new additional money has been added to this program by the ministry.

What can we make of the minister’s commitment to home support programs when people like this, hundreds of them, are in need of service and the ministry will not provide it?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would like to make one correction to the member’s comment. The outreach program in his area began, I believe, in 1986, with an initial grant of about $40,000. The money flowing to that same agency two years later, this immediate past fiscal year, was $149,000.I suggest that is pretty close to a fourfold increase in dollars.

As the honourable member knows, the individual agency is responsible for taking those dollars and deciding where they are best allocated. That is not my decision to make. It is incorrect to say that no new money has gone. A very significant amount of new money has gone.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The minister did not answer the question at all. He can throw out his figure of $149,000, but the fact of the matter is that if Scott were back in the hospital and if Rita were back in the hospital, the cost to this government to keep only these two people in an institution would be more than the entire budget for this outreach program at the Cerebral Palsy Association of Windsor and Essex County.

I would simply like to ask the minister how anyone in this province can believe his government has a commitment to community-based home support programs to keep people out of institutions when deserving people like this are on waiting lists for years and have no prospect of getting assistance. The fact of the matter is that in this program alone more people are on the waiting list than are being served.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would suggest to the honourable member that when he talks about waiting lists for years, that is a slight exaggeration. He suggested himself that we are talking of a couple of months. I would also draw to the member’s attention that when the agency indicated to us it had some priority cases, we gave it in addition to the money I spoke of before an additional $20,000 to deal with its priority list. It is up to them to decide how to allocate that priority list for an additional $20,000.

ST LAWRENCE SQUARE

Mr Harris: I have another question for the Minister of Housing concerning the St Lawrence Square housing development. Given the minister’s stated goal of 6,000 to 7,000 units and having units ready by 1990 -- this was when she made the splashy announcement about a year ago -- I wonder if the minister could update us today vis-à-vis the status of this project on the environmental cleanup and vis-à-vis the total cost per unit of those 6,000 to 7,000 units in that area.

Hon Ms Hošek: I am glad the member opposite is interested in that particular development. I think everybody in the province was interested and continues to be. The commitment we made at the time of announcing the provincial role in that project was that we would not allow any housing to be built on land that was not environmentally safe. As a result, there is a commitment to make sure the environmental cleanup will take place. Whatever is required to be done to make that a very safe location for housing will be completed.

In order to do that, we estimated the costs involved in the environmental work on that site. The city is overseeing that entire process, while the province has promised the resources in the form of a loan guarantee to allow that cleanup and also for the entire project to continue.

Mr Harris: The question was, what impact will that have on the total cost per unit? One of the things we have concerns about is that these announcements the minister makes make for good headlines, but they are made in isolation of the total overall planning that should be going on and the cost-effectiveness of what she is doing.

I will ask the minister again whether she has an update as to what the per unit cost is proposed to be there. If she is doing any kind of planning at all, given that she must now have some idea what that per unit cost is, can the minister tell us what degree of subsidization will be required to ensure that her goal of 60 per cent of those units being affordable is in fact going to be realized?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member should know that when that project was put together, it involved an enormous amount of very careful work on the part of a large number of ministries, including of course the Ministry of the Environment. It is impossible for us to estimate the actual cost of building because it will take place in stages. However, the development has been proposed on a break-even basis using existing government programs. This government has made a commitment through the nonprofit housing program, and that commitment represents $215 million from nonprofit housing for subsidies in that project over a long period of time.

The member opposite can rest assured that our commitment to making sure housing gets built is very solid and clear. We are going to continue to work together with the municipality to make sure that housing gets built. It is going to involve continuous work. It is already taking place right now. Let me assure the honourable member, since I know he is really concerned about this question, that this land will be environmentally clean and safe when the housing gets built.

HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. Fitness levels seem to be improving in Ontario, but I am concerned about the health and fitness of our young people. Is his ministry doing enough to improve the health of students in Ontario?

Hon Mr Ward: I want to thank the honourable member for his question on this very important matter. The member will know that currently the new curriculum guideline on health and physical education is undergoing the final stages of validation. We expect that will be completed in the very near future and made available for use in our schools beginning next fall.

The member will also know that the guidelines for the primary and junior divisions make health and physical education mandatory. In addition, in the intermediate division in grades 7 and 8, 80 hours of physical education per year are mandatory as well. It is true, though, that boards do have the opportunity in terms of specific time allotments during the primary and junior divisions, and frankly the emphasis is very much on individual wellness, on encouraging students to make the right choices for a healthy lifestyle. We do recognize the importance of quality physical education in our schools for all age groups.

Mr Adams: I thank the minister for that comprehensive reply. It seems that frequency of exercise is important. It is often suggested that exercise three times each week is necessary for cardiovascular fitness. Does the ministry take frequency of exercise into account?

Hon Mr Ward: The ministry, through the guidelines, certainly encourages establishing an appropriate regimen for each child. In fact, it identifies that a regimen of at least three times a week is the most appropriate. Many boards in this province, the Wentworth County Board of Education for instance, have quality physical education daily. Certainly, that is an approach that is very much encouraged.

FLOODING

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Together with a lot of other people, I am sure, I was expecting him to make a statement today on the evacuation of two communities on the banks of the Albany River, the communities of Fort Albany and Kashechewan. I want to ask the minister exactly what is going on in these communities. How many people have been moved out and how long does he expect they will be away from their communities?

Hon Mr Kerrio: I certainly would have made a statement if there were grave danger or the need to declare it some kind of emergency. The fact of the matter is that the past Saturday they evacuated some 1,000 people. They have been transferred to Moosonee and Moose Factory. There are about 100 left in the two communities.

I think everything is well under control. We will be monitoring that whole evacuation and when it is appropriate to move people back. I am very pleased if the Leader of the Opposition, having visited the north, has that kind of concern. We have been very much involved in the past. Witness the kind of record this government has with this situation. We moved a whole village and rebuilt a village upstream where they no longer have the kind of risks that exist here.

I want to tell the honourable member that we are monitoring it carefully. At this point in time, there is no great danger. A little bit of colder air swept in that tightened up the situation a little so that the flooding was held to somewhat of a minimum over the past 24 hours.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Kerrio: If there is an event that should be shared with honourable members here, I will be very pleased to do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: I want to say to the minister that if there had been 1,000 people moved out of any other part of Ontario, he would have been on his feet at 1:30 o’clock this afternoon with a statement in this House. That is where he would have been.

I say to the minister, on behalf of the opposition parties, that I expect him to have a statement here tomorrow telling us exactly what the situation is, how many people have been moved out, what the conditions are in those communities, how bad the flooding is and what his plans are to make sure people do not have to be moved 200 or 300 miles in order to deal with a situation that should be dealt with. Flooding ought to be able to be controlled. As I say, if it took place in any other community in this province, he would have been on his feet making that kind of statement and he knows it.

Hon Mr Kerrio: I reject those comments categorically. The member does not know what he is talking about. That watershed on the Albany River is a watershed that neither the member nor anyone else can control. It is flat and when the ice moves in and stops the discharge of the water -- these things happen very regularly in that environment.

Certainly, I would make some comment if it was 1,000 people who were moved for the first time. This is not the case. We are very careful to protect our natives when there is fire, when there are floods and when there is a need to evacuate them, but the member should not tell me that I am doing something quite different from the norm because I will not accept that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are a lot of private conversations. The House is still going on.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

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

It is signed by 66 people from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 24. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There are still many private conversations.

HOME CARE

Mr McLean: I have a petition from the Victorian Order of Nurses, Simcoe county branch, and it is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I have spoken to the chap who took up the petition. He was well aware of the announcement on Friday, but he wants further funding.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Mr Conway moved that Mr Miclash and Mr Owen, Mr Dietsch and Mr Matrundola, and Mr Pouliot and Mrs Grier exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1989

Mr D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1989

Mr D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS’ LICENSING ACT, 1989

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 8,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr McLean: I have an explanatory note with regard to the bill. The bill, which applies only with respect to motor boats propelled by engines of at least 25 horsepower, prohibits the operation of such motor boats by any person who does not have a motor boat operator’s licence.

The bill requires every person to carry a motor boat operator’s licence while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies and to produce it when requested to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the licence, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her correct name and address.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Mr Conway moved resolution 1.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Hon Mr Conway moved resolution 2.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

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.

Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to participate in the debate on the government’s throne speech. I guess I should start by simply saying I always have difficulty figuring just exactly what the throne speech is worth and how important it is in this Legislature. My own experience is that if there is a general debate that has a little more meaning and merit, it is the budget debate that will follow the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) bringing down his budget in another two or three weeks’ time.

My feeling on the throne speech is mixed, mainly because I am not sure it means a heck of a lot. This time around in particular I was more than a little taken aback that this government did not use the occasion to lay out a clear direction, a clear set of policies that it intended to follow and answer some of the criticisms being made of the government at this point in time.

The few measures contained in the speech are no big deal really. What is astounding is that after 19 months of what some would call drift, the government has so little to say, either regarding its own agenda or certainly regarding the needs of ordinary people and their families. We are sort of used to a government that talks a good line. Once again, I really think the Tories probably did a better job in the throne speech than this government has done.

They certainly have not responded, whether it is to injured workers seeking fairer treatment, teachers concerned with their pensions or municipalities facing immense challenges like garbage. This majority government has ignored the problem, it seems, and almost looks as though it is blaming the victim. I think there is an inadequate course being followed today.

The Liberals say they will reform social assistance, but what they have proposed is much less than the first phase of the Thomson report recommendations. Even here, they have hedged the commitment. They say progress will require cooperation from all three levels of government. Just exactly what does that mean? If we do not get it, is the first phase of the Thomson commission report down the drain or are parts of it down the drain?

Anybody, of course, who has followed the debate on this issue knows it has a life almost of its own. As important as all five phases are, we simply have to get on with the first phase, which sets the groundwork for improving people’s lot in life in this province.

Coming just a couple of days before the federal budget and on the heels of a financial squeeze on municipalities, this throne speech really is a truly remarkable statement. The freeze on unconditional grants is only the most visible aspect of the fiscal squeeze imposed by the province. Others include the shifting of court security costs on to municipalities, underfunding of child care, freezing of road grants and a declining level of provincial support for education. The result is higher property taxes and a growing share of local revenues based on regressive taxes.

That seems to be this province’s contribution to tax justice, although of course we will not know finally until we actually see the budget.

On pollution, this government seems to have abandoned a polluter-pay policy in favour of a lottery. How symbolic of this government’s record: Environmental cleanup in Liberal Ontario is now part of a game of chance. As somebody has said, the scratch-and-sniff lottery, or there is another joke going the rounds of this place, that the prize you win is a dirty industry, if you win a Cleantario in the deal.

Liberals say that education is among their six priorities. Yet the latest figures show that the provincial share of education funding is at an historic low. Liberals say they will revitalize the elementary curriculum and restructure the secondary school program this session. The select committee on education made it clear that such measures are costly and require new money for class size, teacher retraining and improved counselling supports. Without the money, these can be empty gestures.

The Liberals say they will support apprenticeship and other training arrangements, to help workers overcome barriers to training and employment and to assist the re-employment efforts of workers affected by layoffs and plant closures. I think if we check this against reality, we will see that plants have closed because of the free trade agreement, and there will be more. Yet even with the federal government cutting a billion dollars from unemployment insurance benefits, Ontario has still not pledged an additional dime for retraining.

Its only move has been in the workers’ compensation and that has been all bad, a money-pinching scheme that will deprive thousands of workers of permanent pensions.

What was not even mentioned in this throne speech we went through? Car insurance, home care, housing, energy, the nursing shortage, the teacher shortage, post-secondary education, employment equity, the north, health and safety, pensions, employment standards; we could go on and on. We really have to wonder why there were so many things left out of it and so little in general or specific terms raised on the issues that are covered.

It seems to me that if we take a look at the priority area, economic development, the “primary emphasis” is defined as “improving education, training and adjustment programs.” The specific objectives, and I think there were eight of them, are: pursuing new markets; targeting support to industries; supporting the growth of Ontario-based companies in the global economy; fostering an entrepreneurial culture; supporting apprenticeship and other training that combines education and on-the-job training; helping workers overcome barriers to training and employment; assisting the re-employment efforts of workers, especially those affected by plant closures and layoffs -- forgive my cynicism on that one -- and addressing present and anticipated shortages of skilled workers.

The first four are standard Liberal rhetoric, and they reflect the view of successive throne speeches, the centres of excellence program, the work for the Premier’s council. It is rather ironic that two world-class Ontario companies, Connaught Laboratories and Lumonics Software, are about to be taken over by foreign companies and without one single peep by this Peterson government. The last four items on this list, I suggest, are nothing but megahypocrisy.

The trade union movement and educators have been screaming about shortages of skilled workers and the inadequacy of apprenticeship and other job-related training for a decade. So far, this government has done little more than publish documents on the problem. There has certainly been no concerted effort to change things. As for assisting laid-off workers, check against delivery. When the federal government announced a billion-dollar cut in unemployment insurance benefits, most of which flows to workers in Ontario, this government had nothing to say.

Last session, when we pushed them specifically on assistance to workers facing job losses as a result of the free trade agreement, the Premier (Mr Peterson) said it was the federal government’s problem and responsibility. During the last provincial election, they introduced Transitions, for old or laid-off workers, and to date it has been a monumental failure.

Plant closures are now occurring at an increasing rate and are as high now as at any time since the recession. There is not a day that I do not pick up the paper and find a new plant that is closing or thinking of closing in the province.

We have heard nothing from the industrial restructuring commissioner, even though this office was created by this Premier more than a year ago. The proportion of jobs in Ontario paying at or near the minimum wage has increased by more than 15 per cent since 1981. I have to seriously question the comments that have been made.

There are a number of other points in the throne speech that do not match up and could be criticized on a point-by-point basis, but I want to deal with a few other issues first.

I was pleased to see the deficit of the Victorian Order of Nurses picked up. I think this is one of the areas where -- well, I guess there are several areas -- the demographics of our province are clear. We have a rapidly growing older population in Ontario and that should give us some clear directions in terms of health care, of the need for home care and homemakers, of the need for Meals on Wheels and of the need for assistance to keep our older people in their homes as long as possible. I do not think it takes any particular brains to realize clearly that has to be a major focus of the government’s direction.

Do we see it in terms of some of the social services that are provided? I do not think we would find the Red Cross saying it really sees it, and there are certainly a number of other organizations, one of them being the VON.

As happy as I am to see their deficit picked up, I note that that is all that was picked up. It does nothing with the ongoing funding problems they are going to have. With an annual budget of $80 million, I think we can see the size and the scope of the VON operation and the need to make sure that this organization is able to move ahead.

If we want to shift the health care system away from institutions and towards community-based care, it has to be more than just rhetoric and it has to be the ongoing funding, not just getting an organization such as the VON out of an immediate hole of a $2.5-million or $3-million shortfall or deficit in its funding. I think we have simply got to see a response that has a heck of a lot more meat in it than that.

I could not help but be impressed by a letter I received just this past week from a gentleman who had really taken a serious look at the financial problems of the VON. He wrote a letter to me that I think says most of it. This gentleman is a prominent citizen in my riding, a QC, and he wrote the following letter to the Premier and sent a copy of it to me.

“Recently, I have discovered the ongoing situation financially with the Victorian Order of Nurses, Hamilton-Wentworth branch and the Ontario branch. It has been my privilege for the last 50 years to have been a member of all of the boards of the Hamilton-Wentworth branch, provincial branch and the Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada, having served in many offices and being a life member of both the Victorian Order of Nurses, Hamilton-Wentworth branch and a founding member of the Victorian Order of Nurses for Ontario.

“I hold this office in addition to a number of other offices within the community and feel compelled to express my feelings, both as a citizen of the province of Ontario but also because of the services which have been rendered to my wife through the past two years by the Hamilton-Wentworth branch.

“When I was a founding member of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Ontario branch, I attended, on behalf of the then existing branch, on the departments in an effort to obtain assistance for the needs of what was then a very active and growing branch of the national office. It was my experience, along with the superintendent of the Ontario branch, to attend before the ministry and to request funds to assist the extension of the service.

“Ironically, at that time the government felt that $10,000 was enough money to be given to the 52 then existing branches in Ontario and, as treasurer of the body, it was my duty to calculate the distribution of the $10,000 among the then existing 52 branches. Needless to say, the amount allocated to each of the branches was very minimal.

“Through the years, the need of the Victorian Order of Nurses has grown and has relieved the hospital care of many patients, particularly after a protracted illness in hospital. Home care has entered into the picture to a great extent and the rendering of service of inestimable value.

“Personally, from my own experience, my wife suffered a very severe stay in the hospital over six weeks and then received nursing service for another two to three months upon her return home. She would have been one of those who would have had to attend outpatient attendance three or four times a week. Needless to say, such attendance would not only be expensive in so far as hospital care and attention was concerned but also expensive and difficult on her personally.

“The nurses who attended our home were understanding, capable and were evidence of the need for health service during the period of recovery. Personally, I cannot speak too highly of the service rendered, and this had been the first personal occasion for my having to call upon the VON in all of the years that I have served as a member of the board.

“With the greatest of respect, I would humbly submit that the government does not seem to see that VON is a service which might be called ‘a hospital without walls’. The hospitals are a necessity for immediate care of ill patients, but VON is a hospital the cost of which when compared to hospital care and the lack of beds is beyond comprehension. It would appear that the department of health does not realize the true significance of the role that VON is playing and how many elderly citizens are being cared for in their homes who ordinarily would be filling hospital beds.

“The services, in case you are not aware of them, in the particular branch to which I have the honour of being a member of the board of governors and life member, and an active member and also honorary solicitor, render not only nursing care, home care, home visiting, volunteer care, day care and many other services, as well as being a valuable go-between between the needy patient, who incidentally is never turned down for lack of money, and as an advertisement for care which the government is attempting, through some media, to illustrate cannot be replaced.

“I feel there is a misunderstanding on the part of the department of health in not supporting the needs of VON. As I understand it, at the present moment there is only provision for four per cent for the year 1988-89,

whereas our request was for a seven per cent increase. Surely someone with an analytical mind can see that the VON cannot continuously have a deficit, which at the present moment is well in excess of $2 million and will continue to grow.

“The ordinary patient cannot continue to pay greater fees than those that are being charged, and I would respectfully submit that there is a degree of indifference existing, and certainly not a realistic approach to a need that is so great, so money-saving to the government, and yet is not being recognized. It would appear that other sections of the country from time to time are receiving assistance via the various routes, department of highways, sports, even the dome stadium.

“If the health department wishes to practice what it preaches, particularly with various conditions existing at the present time such as AIDS, smoking, heart and lung disease and the multitude of other conditions, many of which are in fact being attended to under the aegis of the Victorian Order of Nurses and its various branches throughout the Dominion of Canada.

“Sir, you have been”--this is, of course, a letter directed to the Premier -- “a resident of London, Ontario for many years and must have some knowledge of the work being carried on by the order there. If you would not, I would respectfully suggest that maybe it would be a good time to have a review of the situation as applicable to the London branch, keeping in mind the number of branches existing throughout the province for which you, sir, are the Premier and, I would hope, an advocate of health, not only through the medium of the department of health of the province of Ontario but through its extended interests.

“There is possibly another factor of which you are not aware, but many of the senior citizens of Ontario are being served in their homes,

whereas if there were not any nursing service, they would all be confined to nursing homes, which as you are aware, likewise are almost unavailable in many instances.

“As a practising solicitor, it is interesting to note in checking the columns of the Hamilton Spectator and the Globe that there are three times as many death notices contained in the Spectator and the Globe on an ordinary day as opposed to births. This should be some indication of the need for the elderly as well, and let us, with all sincerity, approach the future knowing full well that the people who have maintained the province of Ontario are now the senior citizens who need tender loving care and attention such as that given by the Victorian Order of Nurses.

“I am sure, from my own knowledge, that my grandchildren feel exactly the same way and that the senior citizens should be given the attention so badly required. We all realize there are certain limitations, but those limitations should be sorted out, and the ones that are really the major ones should not be limited.

“I realize this note has been much longer than I intended it to be, but I would ask you, sir, that you would personally consider the matter, and I would even deem it a privilege to receive your personal reply.”

It seems to me that letter from a very prominent citizen in our community, and one who has all his life been involved, written to the Premier with an awful lot of feeling, is an indication of how most of the citizens in this province feel. Certainly the feeling is that we simply have to change our priorities. This throne speech certainly does not set that direction. I am not sure what we will see in the budget speech.

As well, I want to deal with the St Peter’s Hospital issue in my constituency. Folks at St Peter’s had a study done by the ministry that verified their argument that it is receiving less per capita than comparable hospitals in Ontario. It is an institution that is extremely well thought of in our community.

They waited a long time, trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and an even longer time trying to argue out the needs they had to meet the requirements of St Peter’s Hospital in Hamilton and to upgrade the standards in the work they are doing, which is rather remarkable. Their request was for $2.6 million. They were a long, long time in getting a response. They actually got 19 per cent of this $2.6 million in each of two years. The funding is simply not enough.

In 1987, when the request for enhanced funding was first initiated, comparable facilities in Ontario were funded at a level to provide the equivalent of 60 minutes’ more services per patient per day. The increased funding awarded St Peter’s will allow only 10 minutes’ additional therapy and services per patient per day each year over the next two years.

On 28 April, the hospital wrote to the Minister of Health stating quite clearly that the amount of enhanced funding was inadequate and reiterated the need for the full $2.6 million. I am hoping that request is going to be looked at.

I could get into the study that was done, the verification of the case that was made by St Peter’s, but I will not; instead -- I do not often use editorials out of the Hamilton Spectator -- I am going to use an

article out of the Hamilton Spectator, an editorial of May 6. It says:

“At St Peter’s, the wrong decision.” I think we have made too many wrong decisions in our direction in this province in the past while, but the editorial in the Hamilton Spectator of 6 May says it very effectively.

“By shortchanging Hamilton’s St Peter’s Hospital. the province missed an opportunity to better achieve its goal of providing more care for the elderly in their homes and communities as opposed to institutions.

“St Peter’s, one of the most innovative geriatric care facilities in Ontario, deserves more than it was given by the Health ministry. Only $1.01 million of a $2.6-million request for additional staff and supplies at St Peter’s was approved.

“The hospital was denied its full request even though the ministry’s own consultants acknowledged a year ago that more staff was needed to enable St Peter’s to provide the same level of service provided for chronic care patients in other parts of Ontario.

“Health Minister Elinor Caplan recognizes the value of St Peter’s, but indicates the province can’t do more, given available resources. This comes from a government that evidently has the resources to launch a highly questionable expansion of kindergarten, for which there hasn’t been great demand.

“St Peter’s is a far cry from the traditional image of a chronic care hospital. It is not a virtual warehouse of beds where older patients with varying health problems slowly deteriorate, with little hope of regaining some activities of daily living and a measure of independence.

“St Peter’s has developed an array of high-calibre therapeutic programs and services which help patients regain lost capabilities. A typical success is a woman who was admitted after suffering a stroke at age 70.

“The patient had lost the power of speech and movement, but made a remarkable recovery after a year of intensive therapy in the hospital’s reactivation program. At 71, she was able to go home again.

“Case histories like these illustrate the importance of St Peter’s to this community. The hospital needs 40 additional staff members to ensure that adequate time and attention can be spent on each patient, to help them to return to the community earlier, and to reduce waiting lists at a time of growing demand.

“St Peter’s officials point out their hospital has always balanced its budget,

whereas other hospitals have chalked up deficits and been bailed out by the province. Understandably, they feel as if they are being penalized.

“Surely, it’s as important for the ministry to provide financial incentives to hospitals which keep their houses in order, as it is to come to the rescue of those which have overspent. Trying to save dollars at the expense of St Peter’s is not only unfair but shortsighted, given the ageing of the population.

“The ministry contradicted itself by rejecting more than half the funding St Peter’s needs to better deliver the quality of care which the government ostensibly believes in. Its tightfisted answer should not be accepted as final.”

I would like to underline that. They have kept within their budget. They are getting less than comparable hospitals right across Ontario. They made their case, and the ministry’s own investigators who were sent in made the case effectively, that the figures and what they were saying were accurate and that they had lived within their budget and not built up deficits from which there was a request to bail them out. For this, they are being penalized. Is that the message that is clearly going out in Ontario to a very respected institution like St Peter’s? I have to tell members that is the message that s being taken in the city of Hamilton.

Let me deal with one or two other areas. I was going to go into the problems at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals and the cutbacks that are required in another area dealing with rehabilitation and the needs of people. I will not because one of my colleagues in this House, the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson), I believe, asked some specific questions on the extent of the cutback and just what it was going to do in terms of the needs of people in our community.

What the kinds of cutbacks there -- the kind of drop in the number of people who will be treated -- for certain services are going to do mean larger costs down the road and more institutionalization. We are simply not addressing that problem.

But the problems cover a lot of other areas as well. A piece out of the 3 May copy of the Hamilton Spectator states: “Funding to Prevent Wife Abuse Criticized. Women’s shelter group says $5.4 million just a token. Battered women’s shelters have attacked the Ontario government’s $5.4-million increase in funding for wife assault prevention programs as a token gesture.” It goes on. I will not go into all the details in this particular story. Most members, I suspect, have had similar experiences in their own communities.

I do know that I have assisted the board of one institution in our town. I have worked with some of the others such as the interval houses, and I can tell members that they are not happy. They are not meeting the need. They are not beginning to meet the need. They are not breaking the backlog in an area where we are saying all of a sudden, “Hey, this is one of our priority areas and this kind of mistreatment and abuse of women must end.” We are not going ahead. We are not increasing the budgets to the percentages at all.

As the publicity is out, there is more awareness now of the needs and of what can be done, but once again this government does not seem to be moving in the direction of assisting in that area.

It strikes me that all of these also add up as a small part, although many of them are separate, in the first phase of the Thomson report. If, as I fear, we also are not going to see the complete action of the Thomson report, one has to ask the question of just exactly what has happened to our priorities.

Has this government reached a pretty firm decision that we are not our brother’s keeper? It is an old saw. Maybe it is an old saw that was more used in socialist circles than some others, but one of the things that has kept me going as long as I have been in the political field is that I may not do the right thing at all times, but I have a firm belief that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, that this all-right-Jack society we are part of today is not a good direction to be heading in and that we are not meeting the challenge of being our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers in this society.

I do not think that is just a saying and that it is trite, small or something that somebody will wear a halo trying to say. I think it is an obligation of all elected members in Ontario. I have to tell members I do not see that happening.

I wonder sometimes just whom the government is listening to. I am not going to give it much attention, but I could not help but get a little chuckle -- it was the only thing that was worth doing -- out of a recent memo the National Citizens’ Coalition sent around. Some members probably have read it. It attacks funding and says this is the reason for all our troubles in this country, for feminist groups, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women which they say is a left-wing think tank or whose political agenda is indistinguishable from the New Democratic Party according to Mr Somerville’s comments.

The Ministry of Labour, for example, has supposedly given $10 million to the Canadian Labour Congress to train union organizers. My understanding is it is for the training of safety and health people in programs, but I guess you can play fast and loose with the facts in a document like this. The NCC says a disarmament fund has given millions of our tax dollars to groups which work to render Canada defenceless. It goes on to talk about the “deep-sixing of the Nielsen task force recommendations for government spending cuts in 1985.

Remember the shelving of the Forget commission, reform proposals for unemployment insurance?” They wanted it cut long before we saw this current cut. They talk about a number of other services to people, which they call left-wing pressure groups, always appearing in the newspapers and on talk shows; they ask us to consider our taxes and tell these groups that the tax trough is not the way to go.

The interesting thing is that every single one of them is a group that has something to do or something to say about the needs of ordinary people, the various programs such as wife abuse, some of the programs I have been talking about.

Are these the people, is it Mr Somerville and the National Citizens’ Coalition, that this government is listening to? I hope not.

In terms of most members, I do not think that is who they are listening to, but certainly if you read their ideas and their diatribe, and it is a rather sick diatribe against the needs of ordinary people, you would have to wonder, because some of what they are saying in terms of the restraint and the cutbacks we are seeing today is showing itself in the throne speech. I just hope to heaven it does not show itself in the budget as well.

I think also that we have seen little in the way of improvements for working people in this province or for improving working people’s standards. I know that is not popular with a number of members in this House, but I think it is further evidence of the direction we should be going and of a civilized society.

I think it is worth mentioning some of the bills we have moved in this House, and from time to time others have moved in committee or at one level or another have been discussed, none of which has seen the light of day. The Pension Benefits Act to prevent employers from removing funds from a pension plan: that particular bill was almost prophetic. It was Bill 30, I think, the last time I moved it in this House.

Certainly, while the defenders will say, “Oh, it is not the definitive answer yet,” the Ontario Hydro pension rulings of the court clearly suggest that the fight we have been carrying on for a good many years in Ontario, that pension funds and surpluses building up in pension funds are in lieu of wages and belong to the workers involved and should be used to enhance, improve or index their pension plans, and that companies being able to remove excess amounts from these pension plans was, as far as we were concerned, as we have stated in this House, little more than theft -- it seems to me that court ruling has gone a long way to say, “Hey, you folks were right.” When are we going to stop?

We froze for a while the companies’ taking out excess, over and above what was needed to cover the actual terms of the pension. We froze the ability of the companies to take the money out, to add it, if you like, into the corporate treasury or the general revenue of the corporation. What we did not stop -- I ask members of this House how it is any different -- was the right of the same company, where it could not go in and pick up $20 million that was surplus in that fund, to decide that for the next year, two years or three years, it was not going to make the payments, usually by contract, into the fund.

All of a sudden, it is okay; you cannot directly lift it or steal it any more, but you can sure as heck get it by the back door simply by not making your contributions for a period of time.

Of course, that is what had been happening at Hydro and we now have the court ruling on it. I think that is going to lead to litigation and challenges right across Ontario, but I am saying to members of this House that I do not know how there could have been a more effective case made for our argument that surpluses in those pension funds belong to the workers and should be used, one way or another, for enhancing their pension plans. I think that case is absolute.

I think one of the promises made by this government during the accord period, one of four it did not carry out, although it established a committee to look at it, was the indexing of private pensions. We are no nearer to it today. What we do see is indexing in the future and indexing at a percentage even less than some of the recommendations made by some of the committees. Once again, it clearly does not give us any confidence that this government is moving in a direction that is really going to benefit ordinary workers in the province.

There are a number of other bills I would commend to the House again, such as the one to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide a public audit board to require plant closure justification. I know that is too much interference with business for the Tories. They have never bought it. There was at least discussion of that with the Liberals. That also was another of the four of the 22 accord items, with the signature of the Premier on it, to be looked at, on which we have not, as far as I know, seen a single, solitary move since 1985. What is it now, 1989? That is fo