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

July 13, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIREFIGHTING

MENTAL HEALTH

FIREFIGHTING

MENTAL HEALTH

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

RETAIL SALES TAX

SEVERANCE PAY

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

FOOD INDUSTRY

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

BASTILLE DAY / PRISE DE LA BASTILLE

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

HIGHWAY SAFETY

USE OF PESTICIDES

PRESELLING OF HOUSING UNITS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

RAIL SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

OXFORD REGIONAL CENTRE

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TIME ALLOCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION ACT, 1989

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1989

SARNIA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1989

CENTRE CULTUREL D’ORLÉANS ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LE CENTRE CULTUREL D’ORLÉANS

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS ACT, 1989

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1989

LONDON REGIONAL ART AND HISTORICAL MUSEUMS ACT, 1989

FORT ERIE COMMUNITY YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT, 1989

BOLSWARD INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1989

SOUTH SIMCOE RAILWAY HERITAGE ACT, 1989

BRUCE OFFICE SUPPLY LIMITED ACT, 1989

CITY OF KINGSTON AND TOWNSHIPS OF KINGSTON, PITTSBURGH AND ERNESTOWN ACT, 1989

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL TAX COLLECTORS ACT, 1989

ANGELATO SERVICE CENTRE LTD ACT, 1989

INNOMED INC ACT, 1989

REGIS COLLEGE ACT, 1989

THIRD READINGS

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION ACT, 1989

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Wiseman moved resolution 17:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that municipalities with populations of under 10,000 people do not have the financial tax base to purchase modern effective and reliable fire protection equipment the government should subsidize these communities with unconditional per household grants for this purpose; and recognizing as well that it is inconvenient and expensive to send volunteer firefighters to train in Gravenhurst, that the Ministry of the Solicitor General provide training for these forces in their own regions of the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for his windup.

Mr Wiseman: I am very pleased today to be given the opportunity to present this resolution to the House. I presented a similar resolution a few years ago, but I think it is even more important today than it was then because of the cost of firefighting equipment and the cost of the supplies that are needed to get rid of a lot of hazardous waste that is travelling on our highways and through trains and other modes of transportation.

I would like to acknowledge as well that our colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) brought forth the first part of my resolution in 1987. Speaking to him yesterday, he would have loved to be here to speak to this, but he is back, I believe, at a function in his own riding.

Hopefully, not all of us in the House will have to go through it, but my wife and I, over the last 35 years or so, have had the misfortune to have two small fires. It was really good to have had the local rural fire department there right away, knowing what to do to put it out. It saved many thousands of dollars, as well as a lot of grief to my wife and me.

We did a lot of homework. I will not have time to get it all in today, but we did speak to the fire chiefs in most of eastern Ontario. They all support this resolution fully. The town of Arnprior, which is in my riding, went a little further to say that the newest fire truck it has is 12 years old. Many others, as members can guess, are quite a bit older than that and they really need upgrading.

As we all know, large centres have the tax base and are able to buy the new equipment. Many times, the used equipment is sold to small municipalities. I am told a lot of it is outdated and some of it is not even safe.

When I checked into it, there are really no standards for used equipment or materials. Maybe we should be asking the acting Solicitor General (Mr Scott) to bring in guidelines to introduce some sort of certification program for used equipment.

The fire chief in Prescott says they are fine in the town of Prescott, but the outlying areas are really in need of upgrading of their equipment. The town of Perth, a town of just about 6,000 people, has just made an expenditure of almost $200,000 on a new fire truck.

Many of the councils that have got back to me -- and many of us have heard from our municipalities -- have said that Statistics Canada has reported that transfers to municipalities this year have dropped by some $832 million. So, there are a lot of places for the local municipalities to pick up from the taxpayers what the provincial government used to give them in transfer payments.

I am pleased the Ministry of the Solicitor General has seen fit to put $20,000 into a study that will be done by that office and the fire marshal’s office and a group of volunteer firefighters to study the standards and the training that should be supplied to volunteer firefighters. Jack McAllister, president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, says that right now the training is inadequate for these groups in Ontario. He fully supports this resolution as well.

There is a concern with any municipality that is along a large highway like Highway 401. Many of the firefighting areas along it, and other main arteries, from time to time have spills of hazardous waste. There are very few large municipalities that have the training or the equipment to deal with this sort of thing, let alone a volunteer fire department that has not had the training or does not have the equipment to deal with such a problem

The training is pretty well all done at the Ontario Fire College and it is done on a weekly basis. Many of the firefighters, particularly the volunteer firefighters, are away from their families a lot if there are many fires in the area. Also, they have families to look after and many of their wives and children do not like to see them take a week of their holidays to go away to take a course at the fire college.

I think it would he fitting if they would go out into the regions more to train the people, and perhaps on long weekends have three-day courses. I understand that to get into the fire college now on a course there is a backlog and it takes something like a year and a half to get into the course and actually take it at the fire college, if you do want to give up a week of your time.

The hazardous waste training is done by the representatives in the region from the fire marshal’s office, and I understand there are 16 trained at a time in that class, but they have only two classes a year of 16 people each.

One of those classes is for people who have the equipment to look after hazardous waste if there is a truck accident or something along that line along Highway 401 or some other large artery, and the other one is for smaller municipalities that do not have the equipment to handle things like that.

I can tell the members that in the town of Smiths Falls, just about 11 months ago, we almost had a real disaster. We did not know someone was storing hazardous waste in an old shed or a barn at the back of a house. On a hot day in late August last year, they noticed smoke. I guess it was some chemicals that had been stored there that were owned by the federal government and they were just lucky they did not explode. The fumes were coming up through the roof and when volunteer firemen went in there not knowing what was in that shed, they could have been risking their lives or health problems from that day on.

It was something like two days before even the Ministry of the Environment got in there. The mayor and I had to really hound them to get them in to check it out, even though they are supposed to have a Zenith number and be there as soon aspossible. Almost 48 hours does not seem like a reasonable length of time.

Since then, they have asked that any hazardous waste in the area be recorded with the fire department to try to avoid something like that. But they did not have the equipment, even if they had known what was in there, to deal with that. They had to bring in heavy equipment from just outside of Hamilton and outside of Montreal or Quebec City, I believe it was.

I just feel that in our rural municipalities that have volunteer firefighters who do come out in all sorts of weather to protect us, the firefighters should be encouraged to take more training, take it in their region, and if they decide to take a week’s holiday off to take the course, they should not have to wait a year and a half for it. The fire marshal’s representatives in the region should give these short courses for two or three days on the weekend so that it would be more convenient for them, and the Ministry of the Solicitor General should look at finding some money for the equipment.

We asked the Ministry of Skills Development for some money for training of the fire departments for hazardous waste and we were turned down flat. I think that is one area that could help to assist the fire groups.

I am anxious to see what some of my colleagues from other areas representing fire departments and municipalities of under 10,000 have to say about it. I am sure they would he supportive because, if they are listening to their fire departments and the councils, they know it is very costly for them to try to provide this training and equipment.

I will save the rest of my time for my windup.

Mr Hampton: I want to participate in this debate because I think it is important from the prospect of the province as a whole and how the province looks at the provision of necessary local services.

It also is very important in terms of the part of the province that I come from because we probably have more small and recently established rural municipalities in northern Ontario than anywhere else in the province. Indeed, I have in my own constituency a number of small rural municipalities which one can say, without hesitation, are cash-strapped. At the same time, there is a demand for a fire protection service and it is a demand I think none of us would want to deny to people who live in those areas, and I think the provincial government would not want to deny that.

In terms of how this all fits in with the policies of the provincial government, it seems there is a bit of an anomaly in what the province is doing. On the one hand, the province says to communities far and wide that it would prefer the local provision of services, the provision of necessary services by local boards and organizations rather than centralized service provided by the province. The province has enunciated a number of reasons for this type of policy.

First, I gather the province feels it is less efficient to provide these services in a centralized way, and on the other side, more efficient for the local communities to provide them. Second, I think the province always takes the view that it is less expensive for local communities to provide the service. Third, I think the province has always taken the position that it is good, in some sense of local democracy and responsibility, that the local municipality provide the service.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the provision of fire protection service for small municipalities and rural municipalities, I do not think the province has followed through on those things it has enunciated. Let me give an example.

If you are an unorganized region or an unorganized rural municipality, that is, you do not have an actual municipal form of government, the province has been quite generous, some would say too generous, in assisting unorganized territories or unorganized rural municipalities in terms of providing them with equipment, funding for training and grant funding to put together a volunteer fire department. The province in many cases has been very generous with respect to unorganized municipalities.

If the province is going to do that for an unorganized territory that has no real municipal structure, you would think that the province, having done that for small unorganized territories, would perhaps he more generous with small organized municipalities, because after all, here is a municipality that has decided it wants to run its own affairs. It will bear the cost of municipal government and some of the restrictions that go with municipal government. You would think the province would then say, “We want to help you as well.” In fact, that is not the case.

What has happened, especially across the northern part of the province, is that you actually have small municipal governments that are looking over their shoulders, saying: “‘Wait a minute. Why should we bother to become responsible municipal bodies? Why should we bother to have a municipal organization if the province is going to penalize us financially in terms of fire protection when we do this?”

There are organized municipalities that have written to the Ministry of the Solicitor General and have held discussions with the ministry and said: “Please, it is very expensive for us. We are quite small. We have only 500 or 1,000 residents in our municipality. We have very little commercial tax base. You have provided generous assistance to the neighbouring unsurveyed, unorganized territory next door. Why this anomaly in policy? Why can we not receive funding as well?

The government’s response is, “Yes, we do give you some grants,” but ask any municipal leader out there today and he will tell you, and they have told this government in many ways now -- you need only go to the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association conferences and you will hear it. At NOMA, I think it was put quite bluntly to the government that the existing grant structure is not sufficient as it is.

What is really needed in terms of working out an equal basis for small municipalities is to look at the funding that is provided to small organized rural municipalities and then look at the funding that is provided to small unorganized territories and compare them. Members will see that there is no equality of treatment whatsoever.

What is the end result? The end result, as I said a bit earlier, is that in some cases you actually have small rural municipalities that are saying to themselves: “Maybe we should unorganize. Maybe we should disband the municipal corporation since the province seems to be more generous if we don’t try to exercise some type of local responsibility and democracy.” I suggest to the government that is an absurd result and one the government ought to pay a lot of attention to.

The other result, one that is no less absurd, but probably of more drastic consequence immediately, is that small rural municipalities and small villages simply cannot provide the kind of fire protection that they need and that I think everyone who lives in this society would say they deserve and ought to have. So you have small communities getting by with much less than any rational standard would find acceptable.

I am glad the member has brought this private member’s resolution forward. I note that it is quite like a resolution that was sponsored by my colleague the member for Algoma in 1987. I can only say that maybe we will have to have more of these before this government sits down and takes a very careful look at where it is spending its fire protection dollars, at the equality of the situation and the overall grant structure for the provision of these kinds of firefighting services.

Finally, the resolution speaks in terms of the cost of sending volunteer firefighters to Gravenhurst. Particularly in my part of the province, that is an unrealistic and some would say totally asinine expense. In a province this large where you have a large number of volunteer fire departments established in northern Ontario because of the sparse population, it makes no sense at all to send all those volunteer firefighters to Gravenhurst for training. In fact, many communities in northern Ontario have petitioned the government to provide a volunteer firefighters’ training centre somewhere in northern Ontario.

The cost advantages to the government would be incredible if the government did that. I recommend that strongly. It is long overdue.

I see my time is up. There are a few other things I would like to say, but they will have to wait for another time.

Mr Kanter: I rise in support of the motion put by my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew and supported by the member for Rainy River. I am in support of the general principle of the resolution. However, I do have some concerns about some of the details and would like to speak about some of the specific aspects of the resolution the member has put

While I am in support of the principle of more provincial funding for fire equipment, I believe the specific funding proposal requires further refinement. I would like to emphasize that there is now a considerable amount of training, particularly for volunteer firefighters, provided on a decentralized basis, while agreeing with the member that there is room for more effort along those lines.

I would like to point out that the resolution is silent on the matter of fire prevention. This is something that this government considers extremely important. We understand and are looking at the efforts of some other countries that spend more on fire prevention than they do on fire suppression and firefighting. They have a much lower rate of loss from fire damage than we do here in Canada.

I expect that most members of the House are familiar with the rough pattern of the delivery of fire services in Ontario. We have 34 full-time fire departments, 100 composite departments that consist of both professional salaried firefighters and volunteers, and 522 volunteer departments. Perhaps the important point to note here, as some other speakers have, is the fact that there are more in terms of numbers. There are 17,000 volunteer firefighters compared to 9,000 full-time firefighters.

I also think it is important members are aware of the difference in costs between a full-time fire department, a volunteer fire department, and in some cases smaller municipalities that purchase fire protection from neighbouring municipalities. A full-time fire department obviously costs more. You are looking at a per capita cost of $50, $60, $70 or $80 a year. Volunteer fire departments might cost $30 to $40 a year and smaller municipalities that purchase fire protection have a still lower cost of $10 to $15 per year.

I know my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew made the point that fire equipment is expensive. He is of course correct, but we understand that well-maintained equipment will last for a number of years. Perhaps well-maintained 12-year-old equipment is more than adequate in most parts of the province.

I would take some exception to one of the comments I heard that suggested there was some sort of massive decrease in the amount of grants provided to organized municipalities. Clearly, organized municipalities are in a different position, a better position and a stronger position than unorganized municipalities in terms of grants.

Last year, this provincial government provided unconditional grants of about $870 million consisting of several different factors: general support grants, per-household grants, resource equalization grants and special support grants. I would emphasize that the formula for these grants is really biased towards municipalities that have smaller tax bases so that some larger municipalities, such as the area I represent, get relatively little in municipal grants per capita, quite deservedly so, compared to other municipalities that have a smaller tax base.

Of course, money from any or all of these sources, these unconditional grants, can be and are used to purchase fire protection equipment. It is also true that municipalities receive a number of conditional grants, some of which are related to fire protection services. There is funding to cover the cost of fires that originate on crown land, funding to assist in the prevention and control of grass, brush or forest fires, and also funding for unorganized municipalities, which my colleague the member for Rainy River referred to.

This program, which began in 1976, has had a substantial impact on reducing the fire death rate in unorganized communities. The fire death rate was much higher than in the rest of the province. It is still higher but it has been reduced substantially.

I think my colleague the member for Rainy River may have pointed out a difficulty with the resolution, perhaps inadvertently, when he said that there is a problem with the cutoff. If you provide total assistance to unorganized communities, and no assistance at all to municipalities, there is a difficulty between those municipalities that may in other ways be quite similar.

Similarly, I have some difficulty with the precise nature of the funding mechanism proposed in the resolution. It speaks of subsidizing communities with less than 10,000 people by unconditional grants. I am a little uncertain what that means, whether that is really an unconditional grant, because if funding were provided to municipalities on an unconditional basis, they would not have to use it for firefighting equipment.

I also see some difficulty with the 10,000 population cutoff figure. Taken literally, that would mean that every municipality with less than 10,000 residents would get provincial funding, while no community with more than 10,000 residents would receive help, regardless of its tax base or its need.

I am sure the member for Lanark-Renfrew and all members of the House can appreciate that might lead to anomalous situations. I know there are some municipalities -- I can think of Smiths Falls, for example, in his riding -- that would receive provincial help because they have under 10,000 people. I know there are perhaps other similar municipalities, such as Rideau township in the riding represented by the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling), or Collingwood in the riding of Simcoe West or Nickel Centre represented by the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), that might be just over the 10,000 population figure.

I think there would be some anomalies if you had a 10,000 population figure without looking at tax base or need. I think we need a somewhat more sophisticated mechanism for providing financial assistance.

I would note, and it has been noted, that there was a previous resolution on this subject by the member for Algoma, but the size of municipalities was not so clearly defined in that other resolution. I understand the intent. I support the intent. I am just suggesting that we need to be a little more refined in terms of the nature.

I would like to spend a moment or two on time question of training of fire department officials, particularly volunteer officers. I understand that regional training has been carried out very extensively. Regional training schools were held in a number of counties and districts -- the counties of Brant, Kenora, Rainy River, Leeds and Grenville. There were fire prevention schools held in a number of areas including the county of Lambton. I believe my colleague the member for Lambton (Mr D. W. Smith) will be speaking on this further.

Seminars were held on subjects appropriate for various municipalities, for example, a wood heat seminar. There is a training course for residents in the South Algona, Lyndoch and Brudenell area. I understand my colleague the House leader is particularly interested in that area.

In fact, and I think it is an important figure, there were 6,700 firefighters trained by the Ontario fire marshal in 1988; 4,600 of them were trained at one of the regional programs noted above, in contrast to 2,100 students attending the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. Nearly two out of three firefighters who received training by the government through the fire marshal’s office were trained at a regional location.

Further progress is under way. As my colleague mentioned, there is a group of the fire marshal’s office, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and municipal fire service leaders studying other ways of improving training, with new training programs to include not just one other centre, but really, truly decentralized training, direct training in the firefighter’s own community, training by correspondence, video or community colleges in local municipalities.

I have time just to mention the fact that most fire deaths result from inadequate fire prevention, not from inadequate firefighting. We are concentrating more efforts on fire prevention as well as suppression. There is a program know as the fire safety assist program with a number of components, particularly to help firefighters in smaller communities to be involved, to be knowledgeable and to be helpful with fire prevention.

In conclusion, I support the thrust of this resolution, as it highlights the essential nature of firefighting services in Ontario. I suggest that the provincial government, primarily through the Solicitor General, and also local governments, have a role to play in fighting fires.

While more thought must be given to some of the details, I think it is very important that we achieve the highest possible level of fire safety in Ontario, in our smaller communities as well as our larger urban centres. Therefore, I commend the member for introducing this motion. I will be supporting it.

Mr D. W. Smith: I am pleased to rise this morning to participate in the debate concerning the resolution of the member for Lanark-Renfrew regarding the possibility of funding from the provincial government for the purchase of the firefighting equipment for smaller communities with populations of less than 10,000, as well as the idea of providing training firefighters in a location other than Gravenhurst

Certainly, as the member for Lambton, I represent a good many municipalities with fewer than 10,000 people. In fact, all the municipalities I represent have fewer than 10,000 people with the exception of the town of Clearwater, but the portion I represent in Clearwater has only 8,500 people, so I guess all the municipalities I represent are under the 10,000 figure.

I am one who has to support him, certainly on the principle of the resolution. It is a resolution: As a member of the government party, I guess I can support that somewhat more easily, because, as everyone knows around here, we cannot promote motions or bills that are going to cost the government money. But in this case it is a resolution and the idea behind it I think is very good.

In my riding, we have a tremendous number of volunteer fire departments. I just want to name some of them. In fact, I may be able to name most of them. Courtright and Watford happen to be our two oldest fire departments, and they are extremely efficient at what they do and how they handle fires. The village of Courtright fire department happens to be quite close to our Chemical Valley. As everyone knows, the Chemical Valley is made up of possibly 20 major international plants that have very dangerous chemicals around them, and if fires do take place they can be serious.

If these men -- usually; I believe there are some women now but mainly men in the fire departments -- have to fight a fire in those localities, they have to be trained in the dangers of the different chemicals around those areas.

We can go on and name the Oil Springs-Dawn fire department, the Petrolia-Enniskillen, Sombra-Port Lambton, Wyoming-Plympton and Forest-Plympton. Plympton township has one of its own. Warwick township has one. Bothwell, which happens to he in the county of Kent, I believe provides protection to the township of Euphemia. We have the Thedford fire department, the Bosanquet fire department, Corunna, Alvinston, Brooke, Arkona and Clearwater. All of these are volunteer fire departments except Clearwater, which has, I believe, a full-time chief and one or two other members.

Of course, Clearwater is under discussion now because of amalgamation with the city of Sarnia, so we are not sure what will happen to that force in the future.

In mentioning the figure of 10,000 people, some may have reservations with that number. I might suggest that if government cannot live with that number, possibly we could have a graduated percentage of grants given to, say, from 8,000 to 15,000 in population, but I think it is very important that the province sees fit to provide some assistance to these small communities.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I think the province would likely recognize that whatever few dollars it can provide at this level, in these small communities which do not have the assessment base to do all things for all people, will be very well spent. As everyone knows, especially those who have come through municipal councils, the most efficient tax dollars are spent at the local level. I am sure the province would get dollar value if it can provide these funds.

I want to mention too that I think our former Solicitor General, the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith), has initiated programs and projects that are going to benefit in the long term, so I commend her for that. I am sure they will likely develop as time goes on and will help all of these small communities and firefighters.

We may not recognize that one of the things these small volunteer firemen do is restore some of our history in the old fire engines I can think one in the Forest fire department. They have restored, I believe, a 1926 Oldsmobile fire engine. Within the last week or two, it was over in the United States in a demonstration, because there are not very many of these types of fire engines around.

When it comes to the training course, my colleague mentioned there was a four-day fire prevention school in Lambton last year. These are very important to the firefighters. They bring them together and they can discuss their common problems. As I said earlier, because we do have the Chemical Valley in Lambton, it is very important to bring these people together and teach them some of the things they might expect if such a fire were to break out.

I think these training, fire prevention schools are very important, but I must add that they have had them in Gravenhurst for a number of years. I am sure a lot of the people would like to go there just to see that beautiful countryside up there. I have been to Gravenhurst myself a few times, and I know if I had the opportunity to go up and learn a bit and socialize a bit, I could not think of a nicer place to go.

There will be mixed emotions if we take out the Gravenhurst fire training school altogether for the people to go and visit and learn at, but I think we have to figure on the efficiencies of having schools closer to the fire departments and cut down on the mileage. As the member for Lanark-Renfrew said, they can then be with their families in the evening.

There are mixed things within this resolution. I believe the vast majority of suggestions here are to the benefit of the small municipalities. Back home it is said that I support them almost too strongly, but I have to feel that is a compliment, because I believe the towns and villages of Ontario and across Canada provide somewhat of a spice of life to our communities. They provide something that gives us all a little character throughout the country and throughout the province.

I certainly want to support in principle the resolution of the member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Hopefully, some of these things he is suggesting can come to fruition and the government of the province will see fit to help in many ways in the future.

Mr Dietsch: Because time avails an opportunity to address this motion, I would like to pass a few comments on this very important motion. It is very important, because many small municipalities in Ontario have volunteer fire departments. Many volunteers dedicate a great deal of their own personal time to protect the lives, houses and buildings of ordinary people in communities in which they live.

There are, as my colleagues have pointed out, some areas of difficulty in the resolution, although I think the principle of the resolution is a very important one. It is very important from the viewpoint that municipalities under 10,000 do have difficulty in securing a very stable financial base, recognizing that the money that has to be spent on fire protection equipment is spread out. Many of these municipalities are generally rural in nature and have a very large land base to protect.

One of the points in the resolution that concerns me is the wording “unconditional grants.” I am sure the member will know that by being unconditional, they cannot be earmarked for particular areas of protection. That point concerns me, and I think one of the previous speakers brought that point to bear. If they are designated as conditional grants, earmarked specifically for firefighting equipment and training, I think it is an important aspect to take into consideration.

In my own riding of St Catharines-Brock, we are very fortunate in the smaller municipality I represent, the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. It has a volunteer fire department. However, it does not fit into the smaller scale the member would suggest of a municipality with a population of less than 10,000. That concerns me, because the population happens to be 12,500.

I take very seriously the comments of the member for Lambton that perhaps it should be a sliding scale so it is fairer in dealing with the smaller municipalities, so that it takes into consideration the direct costs a smaller municipality which happens to be just outside the 10,000 guideline, like Niagara-on-the-Lake, would bear.

I would like to point out that Niagara-on-the-Lake is a fruit-growing community. The fruit industry is protected by a number of chemicals and by a number of reactionary chemicals that would have effect by fire; it is very important to take that into consideration, especially with respect to training, albeit Niagara-on-the-Lake has an excellent reputation at supporting its fire department. I know that, because I was a member of the municipal council for a number of years in that municipality and was in charge of the finance and administration committee, under which the fire departments report.

I think a very important aspect of the member’s resolution is in addressing the training. I will support this motion in that I think it is the principle of the right way to go. However, I can honestly say that the government under the previous Solicitor General has done a number of very positive points towards fire protection, and I am sure the government will continue to address those points.

It is important to note that if we can develop within the context of this kind of resolution a sliding scale to protect the municipalities like the one I represent and others that fall just outside the guideline being suggested, I think it will be a more positive and direct benefit to those areas.

The principle of this resolution sets well for the member and his concern over the fire protection of the people of Ontario.

I have mixed reactions about suggesting regional training centres. In the area I represent they do have regional training, they have the opportunity to take advantage of the larger regional setting, and the professional firefighters from those areas share their experiences with the smaller municipalities that have the volunteer fire departments. I think that that kind of regional co-operation is a very important co-operation which we want to ensure continues. I know that the member, in his sincerity for this type of effort, really feels that this is the right way; that this is a step in the sequence of proper events.

I want to say that I sincerely support this resolution. I sincerely believe this resolution will create the ability to assist those smaller municipalities, which do not have that broad financial tax base.

With those few short comments, I want to compliment the member for bringing forward this resolution. I want to compliment my colleagues who have spoken in support of this resolution. My hope is that the government, in picking up this kind of resolution, will take the comments I and others have made in support of this resolution into serious consideration and will benefit not just those municipalities that are under 10,000 but those municipalities on a sliding scale that fall into that range.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to thank the members who spoke in favour of the resolution. I would just like to comment on the training the parliamentary assistant mentioned. Of the 4,600 who trained at Gravenhurst, it is my understanding that very few of those were volunteer fire people. My information on the training is not my own. It is from Mr McAllister, president of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. That is the information he gave me and I am sure he is well familiar with it.

I would like to say how I arrived at the 10,000. Many of us know that the cutoff point for many of the provincial programs, where it is at a different level, is $10,000. For instance, the Ministry of the Environment cut back its grants; you get more under $10,000 than you do if you go over $10,000. A lot of the other programs are geared that way. That is why I came up with the idea of municipalities, even though it seems I was just thinking of my own area, where they all fall into that category. But I was not; it was because of the cutoff point that government seems to have as a guideline.

As far as trying to get more training for hazardous waste is concerned, I understand the only one scheduled for Ontario is to be held at Kingston, and only one. It takes 16 people; it would take a year and a half to get through the backlog for that training. This is the sort of thing I am asking the government to try to provide more of. As for the idea of providing more training in the region by the fire advisory services, it is doing a good job out there but there are just not enough people; a person, as I understand it, does not have the time to give as much training as he or she would like.

With respect to the grant system and how I arrived at it, as I did in the first resolution I brought through a few years ago, I tied it in similar to a police grant. Police, in areas where they do their own policing, get a police grant. It used to be per capita, and now the government, I understand, gives it per household. This is why I had tied that in. To me, it was a clean and easy way of providing money on a basis which is already set up.

The parliamentary assistant did mention grants and that grants were not cut back. I was just using Statscan figures on transfers to municipalities being cut back this year by $823.1 million. That, as we all know, in whatever size of municipality we come to, means fewer dollars for them and more they have to pick up at the local level; it makes it more and more difficult for them to purchase fire equipment or some of the other badly needed equipment in the area.

I am pleased that all members this morning supported the resolution. I do hope the government sees fit to put some money into a program like this, for training as well as the purchase of fire equipment, so it encourages municipalities to go out and buy a pumper; showing that the government is supportive, the municipality is supportive and it would give great encouragement to our firefighters.

The $20,000 that the former Solicitor General put up to study firefighting and the education of firefighters is good and is a step in the right direction. The new Solicitor General, I hope, will carry on and find the necessary money to support what we have talked about here this morning.

The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for this ballot item has expired.

MENTAL HEALTH

Ms Collins moved resolution 18:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the protection of individual liberty and wellbeing, within a framework of legal rights and protections, is, and shall continue to be, the goal of Ontario’s mental health policy; and, that the timely and appropriate treatment of acute mental illnesses, like schizophrenia and manic depression, is the only way to guarantee the liberty and wellbeing of those who suffer from such illnesses, and that the failure to provide timely and appropriate treatment of acute mental illness causes enormous, but preventable human suffering, therefore, the government of Ontario should guarantee the right of treatment to all persons suffering from acute mental illness.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The member is reminded that she has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and may reserve any portion thereof.

Ms Collins: My resolution for an amendment to the Mental Health Act is necessary for the act to fully meet its objective, which is to protect the liberty and wellbeing of an individual within a framework of legal rights and protections. The broader protection for hundreds of thousands of individuals experiencing acute mental illnesses, like schizophrenia and manic depression, is being denied because the Mental Health Act is protecting the right of these individuals to refuse necessary treatment.

It is not the place of a legislator to stand and deny any single right or freedom to any one individual. That is not the intent or the objective of this resolution. It is our responsibility, however, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Many schizophrenics do not understand that symptoms they are experiencing are due to illness, so they refuse treatment that could help them.

According to an Ontario group, the Friends of Schizophrenics, “schizophrenia renders its victims incompetent to protect their own wellbeing long before it renders them sufficiently ill to obtain involuntary hospitalization and treatment under the Mental Health Act.” Friends of Schizophrenics states clearly that because of this, the Mental Health Act falls far short of adequately protecting the mental and physical safety of schizophrenics.

Too often, these individuals have been abandoned by the very law that is supposed to protect them. Instead of obtaining timely and appropriate treatment, they have been left to find their own solutions to their mental illness; and that often leads to starvation, suicide and aimless drifting to escape from something they clearly do not understand. Many wind up serving time in jail when they should be receiving treatment in a hospital.

Let me read this case in a recent newspaper column.

“Iris’s son is back in jail again, so at least now she knows where he is at night. But the problem that put him there is still no closer to being treated today than it was five years ago when it first manifested.

“He is not a drug addict, not violent or dangerous to anyone but himself, but he does have a habit of running afoul of the law, she admits. Mostly it’s because he can’t help himself, and Iris laments, no one else is interested in helping him.

“Marty has schizophrenia, a biochemical breakdown of the brain that short-circuits emotions and logic. At age 16 he was arrested for sexual assault and despite treatment at places like Hincks Treatment Centre, his condition worsened. He started stealing cars, almost as if they were a metaphor to help him escape his desperate reality.

“Still, no one knew what was wrong, why he was so out of control, his mum recalls. He stole his second car at 18 and went to jail in Sackville, New Brunswick. Last summer, he broke into her apartment and stole $400 in rent money and then stole another car and drove it to Vancouver where he was arrested and jailed another nine months.

“In the interim, Iris started looking for answers and found someone had made a diagnosis. Treatment, however, was a whole different story. ‘Paranoid schizophrenic,’ she says, but I can’t get him into a hospital because they can’t force him to accept treatment. If he stays on his medication, she says, things might workout. But there’s little hope he’ll keep up the regimen of pills.

“‘I went to his place in a rooming house the other day because I hadn’t heard from him,’ Iris sighs. ‘He was lying on his bed, in the dark, his face painted black.’

“A brief hospital stay and he was released. It was not long before he was back in trouble, stealing another car and landing in Mimico Jail where he awaits trial. ‘He does understand he broke the law,’ she says, ‘but putting him in jail doesn’t solve anything. Unless he gets some help, he’ll just do it again.’”

As the

article goes on to state, “Schizophrenia is a biochemical illness. You wouldn’t lock up someone with a heart attack, so why do we punish the sick?”

The problem was recently described very well in the prestigious British science journal Nature:

“It must be confessed that the now standard treatment of schizophrenia is anything but satisfactory even in the most advanced communities. The assumptions are that when the most disabling symptoms of the disease have been controlled by drugs, patients can be ‘returned to the community’ (one euphemism) for ‘treatment in the community’ (another). All too often, this entails that patients who would previously have spent years or whole lifetimes in psychiatric hospitals are decanted on to the streets to fend for themselves.

Some with support from families and friends, can do so. (One haunting feature of schizophrenia is that those who suffer from it are paranoiacally alienated from their families, while their capacity for even ordinary friendship is diminished). Others cannot, or cannot manage all the time. They are the patients who are now the familiar informal residents of all major cities, sleeping rough in the neighbourhood of railway stations and other such places where aimlessness may be unremarked.

The population of the psychiatrically derelict may be smaller than the former population of the psychiatric hospitals, but is none the less an offence against civility on that account.”

Newspapers, magazines and the electronic media regularly chronicle the circumstance of many psychiatric patients who have either died or nearly died because the Mental Health Act allowed these patients to refuse necessary psychiatric treatment. It is estimated that every year 10 per cent of those who suffer from schizophrenia commit suicide. This means that in Ontario where approximately one per cent of the population is diagnosed schizophrenics, 9,430 people are potential suicide victims because we, as a society, have failed to recognize their need for treatment.

I want to tell this House about some of the victims of this deadly disease.

John, 22, walked down into the cold dank tunnel of St Clair Avenue subway station. In the darkness, he lay down on the subway tracks and waited until the train decapitated him.

Twenty-year-old Matthew plunged two ordinary dinner knives into his eyes and pounded his head on the floor until they pierced his brain.

At 25, Tim finally succeeded in killing himself after six attempts, when he hurled himself from the Bloor Street viaduct to the Don Valley Parkway below.

Abdel, 25, jumped from the roof of a Parkdale rooming house in full view of a schoolyard full of children.

Martin, 38, tied a shoelace around his neck and hanged himself from the rafters of a deserted warehouse.

Ralph, 22, repeatedly shot his mother because his voices convinced him she was a devil. When he saw that she was still moving, he slashed her throat.

Twenty-one-year-old Stephen shot himself to death.

These tragic events take place in every community across this province. This is reality. This is what we must seek to prevent. The flaw is obvious. The solution is the amendment I propose today.

The right of a patient to refuse appropriate treatment when treatment is clearly warranted is of growing concern to the medical community. That is because these individuals suffering schizophrenia are treated differently by the law because their illness is emotional rather than physical.

Let me give an example. If a person is lying unconscious with a broken leg, we do not wait for that person to regain consciousness before placing a cast on the leg. A cast is administered because a cast is necessary.

But legal wrangling over the right of a patient experiencing an acute mental illness too often becomes a tragic substitute for what should be appropriate medical treatment, when treatment is necessary.

Frequently, schizophrenics are hospitalized and found to be mentally incompetent but refuse treatment. Under the present law, patients are sometimes held involuntarily for months without treatment while the matter is considered by boards of review and ultimately by the courts. The difficulty does not lie at the review board level, where things generally progress in a timely fashion. Rather, the problem arises at the district court appeal level.

While appeals from treatment orders or findings of incompetence are pending, no treatment can be administered to the patient. This is the worst of all possible worlds. People are deprived of their liberty for extended periods of time and receive no treatment. Some patients have come close to death awaiting district court appeals.

It should be clear that I do not mean these suggestions to apply to all treatment, but only to those, like the administration of antipsychotic drugs to acutely ill schizophrenics, which promise significant short-term benefits, impose little risk of immediate harm and do not involve immediate, irreversible changes to the physical or mental being of the patient.

I believe we should permit the treatment to be imposed following authorization by the review board, even if a district court appeal is pending; or create a power in the district court, similar to that found in subsection 33f(1e) and subsection 33f(1i) of the act, to authorize involuntary treatment prior to the hearing of an appeal from a review board authorization of treatment.

It is time to place the value of a human life above legal point making. It is time to recognize that the nature of the illness, schizophrenia, means those who suffer from it cannot always control their own minds. And it is time to stop making these individuals pay with their lives for a piece of legislation that is working against them, not for them.

Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics is calling for a new law to provide both timely short-term involuntary hospitalization and timely short-term voluntary treatment for acutely ill schizophrenics.

The Mental Health Act does not address the high risk of suicide among schizophrenics. Among those affected by schizophrenia, one in 10 will commit suicide. There are a number of areas in which reform might well help prevent suicide deaths

First, create a class of high-risk schizophrenics who have at least once before attempted suicide. Amend

section 29 of the Mental Health Act to permit all psychiatric facilities in the province to be automatically notified that a person is on the high-risk list, and provide for the rapid movement of clinical records for high-risk persons between psychiatric facilities. When such persons threaten suicide, they would be deemed to satisfy the tests under

section 9 and

section 14 of the act and could quickly be assessed, admitted and treated. Of course, it would be necessary to provide an appropriate process by which names could be expunged from the list, and information contained in files challenged and corrected or expunged if found to be inaccurate.

Second, provide for rapid access, through some kind of hotline facility, by different psychiatric facilities to one another’s clinical records for schizophrenics who have been involuntarily hospitalized and treated in the past. Again, it would be necessary to provide an appropriate process by which information contained in files could he challenged and corrected or expunged if found to be inaccurate.

The present act views the world in black and white: Either a patient is voluntary and can leave a psychiatric facility at will, or is involuntary and cannot do so. Since the competence of individual schizophrenics is both task-specific and variable over time, accordingly, the range of legal devices available to protect schizophrenics from their disease, and the community from schizophrenics, should be more flexible than they are now.

It should be possible to return a person who has been involuntarily hospitalized to the community without cancelling the involuntary hospitalization order so that patients can live independently in the community, under medical supervision, but be hospitalized quickly when illness strikes. Similarly, outpatient involuntary medical treatment orders should be made available, along with outpatient facilities for the administration of medicines.

The goal is to facilitate the earliest possible return of ill people to the community, while imposing the least restrictive limits on their liberty. We, as legislators, have the tools to help those who cannot help themselves. We have the will, and I ask members to join me in making that will a reality.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve all six minutes and 20 seconds?

Ms Collins: Yes, Mr Speaker, I would like to reserve all the time.

Mr Reville: The member for Wentworth East has produced a resolution that is well crafted, it is important, and it is opaque.

By opaque I mean that the resolution is written in code. Any member of this House, as a person of goodwill, could read this resolution and say, “Absolutely, without question, any humane society would approve of this resolution.” For a member who has analysed the discourse on mental health, the response must be that this resolution requires extended and vigorous debate.

Now that I have heard the member speak to her resolution, I know she has told a story that is both true and terribly naïve. Do we agree, for instance, on what we mean when we say “individual liberty”? What are our

definitions of “wellbeing”? What do legal rights and protections mean? Protection of whom -- the person with the mental health problem, that person’s family or our society as a whole?

In a sense, I wish the member had introduced amendments to the Mental Health Act; then I should have known what I was up against. What do we mean by treatment? Do we mean drugs? Do we mean incarceration? Do we mean a crummy boarding and lodging house with three meals of porridge a day? Do we mean wrapping someone in a cold wet sheet?

What does schizophrenia mean? June Beeby, who is here in the gallery, knows what it means. She is the executive director of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics. But there was the famous Rosenhan study that suggests schizophrenia means presenting yourself at a mental hospital and saying that you hear a voice that says, “Empty, hollow and thud.” I recommend that no member try this experiment.

I know people who would never agree that the timely and appropriate treatment they received guaranteed their liberty and wellbeing. On the contrary, they would say they lost their liberty and did but achieve wellbeing. There are, after all, worse fates than sleeping rough. I do know people who are grateful for the treatment they received.

All of us receive calls and letters from people who are in despair about a loved one. The facts will vary, but the one message is clear. Our constituents are not being served by our system:

Billy is breaking all of their windows at 3 in the morning; the police come and take Billy away, and in two hours Billy is back, and he is looking for another window to break.

I have a friend whose son, with horrifying regularity, attempts to kill himself in her kitchen. She cleans up the blood. She has given up wondering why the system does not come through for her son. She has a modest hope: her hope is simply that she will be able to keep cleaning up the blood. Her dread is that she will not be able to.

What is to be done? A tougher Mental Health Act? Outpatient committal? I think that is what the member is suggesting. Independence with a string tied around your neck? Should we build more mental hospitals? Should we dispense more drugs?

I offered a solution on 1 December 1987. It was called

An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services, sometimes called Bill 50. The main principle of this bill is that each person is entitled to receive services in the least restrictive setting, consistent with that person’s needs and potential and abilities. That means, of course, lock people up as little as possible. Bill 50 calls for a system that would give each person the maximum opportunity to participate in the mainstream of community life. That is something that most people diagnosed as schizophrenic do not now have the opportunity to do.

This bill talks about a decent place to live, money to live on and things to keep the mind alive. It is a good idea. Regrettably, there is nowhere in the western world where this is a possibility, and that is too bad. Treatment has to be more than just a diagnosis, a passel of pills and 30 days on the ward. We cannot deal with mental illness as though it were something contained entirely within the person who we suspect has mental illness. We have to deal with the economic, social and, dare I say it, spiritual opportunities people need.

Too many people with mental illness are denied those opportunities because of the way our society works. Once we stick the label on somebody, the menu for opportunity shrinks. We have to expand that menu again. The Graham report, which is now about a year old, offers some hope in this regard. The report talks about comprehensive services, it talks about planning, it talks about co-ordination. It even, mirabile dictu, talks about Bill 50.

The government has now established some committees which I hope will implement the Graham report. The committees, as currently constituted, are flawed. There is still no consumer representation. By consumer, I mean a person who has had direct experience in the mental health system. That is too bad. Why would the government want to build failure into its solution?

I came to this place because I believe we can do better in the mental health field. I believe the answer lies not in a legalistic approach, not in making the Mental Health Act tougher, not in outpatient commitment. I believe the answer lies in finding ways that allow people to take back the power they have lost because of their mental health problem. I believe I am right because I got back most of the power I lost because of my mental health problem and it was not my treatment that helped me to do that.

Mr Runciman: I want to congratulate the member for Wentworth East on the intent, if not the rather obscure wording of her resolution. Given her position on the back benches of the government, I guess I can respect the effort she made in coming up with this opaque wording, as my colleague described it. I would use “obscure” as an accurate description of the wording. But listening to her comments this morning, I am reassured with respect to her intent.

A few years ago, when amendments to the Mental Health Act took place in this place. I was one of the few members opposed to those changes in terms of the restrictions on the ability to treat patients in psychiatric facilities. I recall speaking against it and I believe the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr Henderson) was the only government member at that time to speak against it. That was back in the days when he was a rather independent soul. He seems to have moderated his views somewhat in the current situation.

In any event, I also had to give the minister of the day his due. I believe he had some rather serious reservations about the amendment and felt, given the minority situation and the pressures applied by the New Democratic Party and by the leadership of my party, that those amendments had to go forward. I disagreed and my leader at that time had some very real and genuine concerns about electroshock therapy. Of course the amendment that came into place was much broader than electroshock.

The subject the member has brought forward today is one of considerable interest and importance to me and my constituents because we have a large psychiatric facility. Many psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and other staff have expressed concerns about the subject matter of this motion and some of the ramifications of the many amendments to the Mental Health Act.

To a person, they have expressed alarm at the delays now made legal before treatment can be started. They tell me that by the time some legal roadblocks are surmounted, a patient given medication would in all likelihood be well long before the legal procedures are completed and the patient discharged from hospital. The appeal procedures themselves can last up to a year.

Now we allow refusal of treatment despite medical advice that it is needed, and the attending physician has recourse to appeal to a review board. But if the board gives authority to treat, the patient can appeal to the court. I wonder what other jurisdictions have to protect patients’ rights. What do they do with the patients who refuse treatment? Do they use review boards or do they put the patient back on the street? Is that starting here or should we be looking to the courts in the first place? The court could order certification and treatment given sufficient evidence of the need.

I am not suggesting that there should not be any appeal procedure, but I do suggest that the law is making it more and more difficult for psychiatrists to practise their profession without having a lawyer looking over their shoulders. I am suggesting that the law, as it exists, is having a harmful effect on the practice of psychiatry in our provincial institutions and we will be lucky indeed if we do not have a crisis of a shortage of psychiatrists in the not-too-distant future.

There has been much comment concerning mental illness and legislation that is deemed necessary to safeguard the rights of patients involuntarily committed to mental hospitals and psychiatric facilities. It now seems appropriate to look at current aspects of this matter in an attempt to clarify misconceptions that can arise as a result of frequent changes to the Mental Health Act, some of which seem to reflect on the care provided in Ontario institutions and the practice of medicine generally and psychiatry in particular.

Great progress has been made in the treatment of those with psychiatric disorders. Permanent control of schizophrenia can usually be achieved by drugs first introduced in 1955, and people with this illness can now live happily and function normally if they continue regular medication. This progress alone should generate more confidence in the care and attention patients receive. Certainly it proves the efficacy of drug therapy and doctors’ skills at treating.

Parallel with the development of treatment, legal safeguards have improved to protect patients from unnecessary confinement against their will or from therapy which probably would benefit them but which they do not want. The decisions in these matters may be very complicated. The wishes of patients often conflict seriously with the interests and safety of others.

In the cause of justice, boards of review were appointed in 1968. These consist of experienced lawyers, psychiatrists, laymen and laywomen with special abilities. Their function is to arbitrate in such conflicts and to reach a decision deemed to be in the best interests of the patient.

The decision of the board used to be final, although there was always the right of appeal to the board again in a month. Now there has been added the right to appeal a board’s decision to the county court. The value of this option may be questioned since the courts cannot readily deal with something that is essentially a clinical matter and often complicated by considerable urgency, and the member for Wentworth East discussed that in her comments.

Another additional safeguard has been the appointment of patient advocates. Their assignment increased the possibility of making treatment an adversarial matter rather than one reached by careful explanation of treatment by doctor and staff. Many hospitals’ ombudsmen are also present and attend board of review hearings.

In general, it seems that patients most of all want to feel that the psychiatrists treating them are kindly and know their job. They do not want to find themselves in the middle of legal hassles. Yet that is what is happening under the present law.

We must keep in mind too that there is a serious shortage of psychiatrists in Canada today. This is not likely to improve if aspiring specialists in training spend more time fighting legal battles with well intentioned human rights activists who base little understanding of what it feels like to be mentally ill.

It is paramount that people be treated with respect and justice as well as by capable staff. Competence, however, is difficult to legislate. Excessive preoccupation with legal considerations may obscure the very important issue, namely, the improvement of professional standards and availability of optimal care. It would be tragic if the main loser in the process is the mentally ill person.

I know it is not unusual for a patient to come before a review board, after refusing medication, on appeal by the psychiatrist treating him and to have the board order treatment. The board usually places a time limit on the administration of the medication and asks to see the patient at the end of that period, usually three to six months. Invariably, I am told, there is vast improvement in the patient’s condition.

I understand this has been the case in 100 per cent of the appeals brought before review boards in the past 20 years outside of Toronto. Medication and ongoing medical care are accepted in time, resulting in a period of peace free from violence.

Yes, people with psychiatric disorders can be violent. Just ask any staff nurse or attendant in a psychiatric facility. Yet because of these laws governing treatment and the right to refuse, many of these people are not treated in time to prevent harm to themselves and others. Indeed, I would not be surprised if they were discharged from hospitals because they refused treatment.

It is not unusual for a mentally ill person to refuse to admit that he is ill and needs help. Who knows better -- the lawyer, the psychiatrist or the advocate? I think it is time to consider the law and its effects on those who care for the mentally ill. They want to practise their professions, not law. They are interested in getting patients well as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, if it is possible, I am going to leave these last few seconds to my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson) in rotation.

Mr Callahan: I am pleased and honoured to rise to speak in support of my colleague’s motion. I have often thought that usually we all get elected to this Legislature for specific reasons, and if we can see something positive come out of our stint here, be it short or long, it makes it all worth while.

The difficulty we have in our society is that we have rights that are protected. That is fair enough, but in protecting those rights we may in fact be injuring not just the person we wish to protect, but some of the other people who are the extended loved ones of that person.

In this vein, I speak specifically of time schizophrenic. The schizophrenic is someone, in most cases, who can be assisted by the application of drugs or other types of therapy. Hand in hand with that is the difficulty that by the very nature of the disease itself, particularly if there is a degree of paranoia involved in it, the person believes either that the use of these techniques is in fact an effort to poison him or that the side-effects are part of the disease. Consequently, the individual is not able to take advantage of the benefits that science and experimentation are working hard to discover to slowly overcome this terrible disease.

We speak of rights, and there is no doubt that in the past mental illness has been treated with some rather medieval types of treatment which should have been abolished or certainly placed under significant check and control. But in the course of doing that, we left schizophrenics and we left, as important as schizophrenics themselves, their families, their loved ones, the people who cared, who in the middle of the night found them breaking up the chair with an axe or pounding down a door because they had been allowed to come home, because the parents loved them. What have we done for those people? We have done nothing.

I can remember during the Bill 7 hearings a middle-aged woman, who was sitting in the front of the audience and was a witness in those hearings, summoning me over and asking me, “What are you going to do to help me to help my loved one?” I knew full well what she was speaking of, because it is an unusual fact of life that one in every 100 people, according to the statistics, is schizophrenic.

I happen to know five families, personal friends of mine, whose children are schizophrenics. I have watched them. I have watched the heart-rending agony that they have gone through in terms of trying to look after, to follow, those loved ones.

We as legislators and we as civil libertarians, instead of assisting this reunification and allowing these people to exercise the love that they show to these sick children of theirs, have in fact interrupted it in the guise of civil liberties.

I suggest that it is going to be a difficult task to come up with legislation to try to deal with this specific situation, but we cannot lump schizophrenia in the same situation as other mental illnesses. There are in fact cures. There are greater investigations being done that are resulting in the finding of why someone has schizophrenia, predicting perhaps that it is genetic because of the findings of certain chromosomal aberrations,

There is another area that I think is required, and I think it is certainly not within the course of this resolution, nor could it be because it requires the expenditure of funds. When one looks at the -- I don’t want to use the words “classy” or “high-profile” -- diseases such as muscular dystrophy or cancer, one sees such sums of money as $100 and $300 per patient being invested in trying to find a cure. In the question of schizophrenia and the search for a cure, there is $4 per patient.

Is that because one is a high-profile disease that all of us might face and we do not believe it will ever happen to our loved ones that they will be struck down by schizophrenia, or is it a difficulty that health givers are able to accept that they lumped every mental illness together?

I suggest there is a very real need for increased funding to look into a cure for this very devastating disease. In fact, it is like the old commercial where the fellow in the auto shop says, “You can pay me now or pay me later.” If one wants to approach it simply from the sheer economic side of it, these people are in our courts every day.

I spent 25 years practising criminal law and I would say that I saw thousands of these people who were involved in criminal activities who were simply involved in them because they were sick, and we dealt with them as if they were criminals. Surely the effects and the benefits to society are mega and we should be pursuing it.

To return to the nature of the resolution, I am sure that if we came in with a bill that denied certain rights to schizophrenics -- namely, that they could be involuntarily hospitalized, that they could be required to take the medication that will in fact give them assistance, albeit on a short-term basis, and then perhaps be released to society on some form of a certificate where they would be followed up and it would be ensured that they took their medication -- society would certainly be benefited, the schizophrenic would certainly be benefited, and so would the families of those schizophrenics who cry out in agony.

I am sure anybody in this House who has seen the parents of a person who suffers from schizophrenia, a person whom they have tried to bring back into their home and suddenly is abandoned to the streets -- if the members could see the agony in their eyes and they could see the agony in their hearts and the desperation with which they try to overcome this problem, this Legislature would be sprung into action to use the finest legal minds to find a bill that could be presented to the House because, in fact, it has to be resolved. It is as simple as that.

If we do not do it, we are going to have people wandering the streets of Toronto and even of small towns and areas and people will look at them and laugh and say they are strange. Those people are not strange. Those people are human beings who were children of loving parents who tried their best -- and still try, many of them -- to keep them and follow them and help them.

We are not giving them any help in doing that, when you figure that in order to have a police officer take a person for help it has to be shown that he is a danger to himself or to the public. Schizophrenics perhaps do not display that, and even if they do, when they get to the facility, if they are given medication, they come back around, in most cases, to being perfectly rational people.

I suggest that schizophrenics have to be dealt with in a very different way. If we do not do that, I suggest, then our humanity in deinstitutionalizing people such as these does not put us on any higher standard and what we are doing is abandoning these people to wander aimlessly through our cities, to sleep on the street, to have no life whatsoever, until perhaps it gets so bad that they try to jump off the Gardiner Expressway. Maybe they do not kill themselves the first time. They try again and then they do kill themselves.

Think of the parents who lie awake at home at night worrying about these loved ones wandering the streets with no help, wondering what they can do or following them through the prison system and trying to help them, finding that these people whom they love cannot be saved.

If we, as legislators. simply say “Civil liberties prevent us from doing this; the Charter of Rights prevents us from doing this,” we are not going to make it easier and perhaps more efficacious to have a person treated in a hospital. Most people take their children to an emergency service at night when these things happen. The difficulty of getting into a hospital or getting treatment because of the existing mental health regulations in dealing with schizophrenics just puts them through an entire maze. They walk away frustrated, they walk away hurt, they walk away injured.

I think the purpose of government is to help our citizens and to make certain that families themselves can retrieve their loved ones, so I urge everyone, as a starter, to support my colleague’s resolution, and hopefully we will be able to bring forth amendments that will help these unfortunate people.

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased and honoured to be able to provide some brief comments on this private member’s bill

I think it is important that we put on the record that from time to time we, as politicians in public life, are privy to opportunities to sit and listen to our constituents, to calm ourselves and to try to identify with and understand some of the concerns they present to us in our constituency offices or over the phone.

I think there is no more significant problem that has been presented to probably each and every one of us than the problem that families and individuals are going through in order to achieve mental health, that which we all seek. We hope that throughout life we will be able to have that balance.

First of all, we know that mental health is something that is very badly misunderstood by the public. It lends itself to a great misunderstanding of the real human need and the tragedy that exists right in front of us in all our communities. So, when one of the members of this House has taken the necessary time to sensitize herself to this issue and to understand it that well, it is a moment that is worthy of note.

I, for one, wish to commend the member for Wentworth East, not only because of the bill but also because I am aware of the growth in her understanding of this issue. When she had just been elected, she and I and a member of the New Democratic Party attended a debate. It was apparent during the course of that debate that she was openly expressing an interest in learning more about this subject. I think it is fair to say that she is deserving of much of our appreciation in a nonpartisan spirit in terms of her advancing this issue. All three political parties at one time or another have expressed support for this motion, but she has brought it forward, and for that I commend her.

I want to talk briefly about the bill in the sense that it deals with the acute forms of mental dysfunction. It talks about schizophrenia, which we know is an episodic disease. It is not chronic in nature in that it is persistent over a long period of time. We know that a person with schizophrenia takes medication in an effort to control the worst symptoms, which range from nightmarish hallucinations to auditory signals. One definition of a person with schizophrenia talks about living in a form of twilight zone.

Unless you meet a person who suffers from this disease, you do not get a clear impression as to how tragic this disease really can be, not only for the individual but for members of his family.

These psychotic episodes they go through can ultimately result in increased animosity, in violence, in the taking of one’s life. There have been many cases reported in the media where there has been loss of life and suicide associated with this disease. Invariably, it deals with the larger picture of the other issues: the lack of treatment that was made available; the lack of hospitalization; in fact, cases where a hospital has actually taken an individual and advanced him to the front door and said, ‘Look, we want you out of here,” and within 48 hours -- we had a case of this in my community--the individual has taken his life.

It strikes me that if we are the sensitive and caring society that we all strive to be when we make laws in this Legislature, in fact we have to understand the nature of this mental disorder in order to be able to create the laws that are sensitive and reflect not only the balance between their civil rights but also the state’s responsibility to assist them to receive the necessary treatment to help pull them out from this psychotic nightmare.

Unfortunately, the public seems to think that most of these individuals are characters from TV shows that deal with strange and violent behaviour. People do not tend to try to understand the very unique nature of and our ability to deal with persons with schizophrenia.

And it is not just the public. If we look at some of the reports that have been presented to all members of this House, we see evidence that doctors and the police and the judiciary are struggling to get a clearer understanding and a more sensitive approach to dealing with this issue.

In a recent report by the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics organization, we were brought to a

section of its report:

“Similar problems are encountered when trying to persuade a justice of the peace to issue an order pursuant to

section 10 of the Mental Health Act for the assessment,” which is the prerequisite of any treatment for a person suffering from schizophrenia. It also goes on to say that police officers have the power under

section 11 of the act “where it would be dangerous to proceed under

section 10,” which is to proceed to advance an individual to a treatment centre for an assessment. Therefore, the police are unwilling to take these individuals into custody and they are unwilling to take them physically to a place for an assessment.

Whether or not they get a proper assessment when they get there is a matter for the Ministry of Health and I do not wish to deal with that in the remaining time, but I do believe that this whole issue of the sensitivity of our police force and its co-ordination with our courts is a matter that has to be enhanced in understanding and supported with education and the necessary funding. The amendments to the legislation are required, and quickly, in order for that to happen.

I say that because the consequence of that, as the member for Brampton South (Mr Callahan) clearly and eloquently expressed with respect to the nature of the breakdown and also the needs these families to have their needs met, is that they are left to cope with these situations, which, quite frankly, are also creating mental health dysfunction within that family.

If there is anything we have witnessed, it is that the families themselves start to fall into feelings of helplessness and desperation about society and our government in its inability to help their loved ones and the family. I, for one, as have several members of this House, have become quite involved in the mental health support programs in this province for that very reason, because there is not sufficient support.

I would commend the member for this outstanding resolution and would commend the government, once it is passed in another 12 minutes, to ensure that we in fact take this resolution and guidance which it so clearly demonstrated and make sure that the government acts and reacts. I have been pleading with this government, as members are aware, through the standing committee on social development, of which I am a member, to make this a high priority and to get the

definitions of competence clearly determined and established so that we can set in the necessary amendments to the Mental Health Act and other acts, in order that we now can have a system and laws in this province which reflect the intent of this resolution.

I want to take a brief moment also to talk about the fact that here in Ontario, at least, we should not focus only on the acute needs of mental health. In fact, there is growing evidence that there is an increased incidence of mental health dysfunction among a greater number of our citizens, which may have to do with the fact that women in our society increasingly are being subjected to occasions of violence against them, so that they are suffering as a result of these kinds of abuses. Those abuses also can mean something in terms of their ability to lead their lives with dignity and respect.

We must have a commitment from this government if we are to help women in society to cope better with the kinds of modern-day pressures they have been subjected to.

Until we make a complete and total commitment to understanding the mental health needs of this province, whether it is with sufficient counselling support for women who are victims of violence against them and that commitment is to ensure that they have sufficient funding for appropriate day care, so that the needs of their children are adequately met, we will be unable to give real meaning and teeth to this legislation.

Ms Collins: I want to start by sincerely thanking all the members for their participation in the debate on this resolution. I would like to express my appreciation to the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman), the member for Burlington South and the member for Brampton South for their very strong words of support.

I know that the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville) feels very strongly about this subject. He has asked a number of questions and I think I already responded to most of them in my opening remarks. I hope to respond to some of them in the time I have remaining.

I would like to mention what this government has been doing in regard to community mental health over the last couple of years. In August 1987 the Premier (Mr Peterson) announced that the number of clients served by community mental health programs would be doubled and funding increased to $130 million by 1990-91. Estimated spending on community health programs for 1988-89, based on printed estimates, is $85.7 million, up from $68.9 million the previous year.

As of 30 September 1988, community mental health programs numbered 337. The Ministry of Health’s goal is to have a comprehensive community mental health system in place by 1991, ensuring wide access to programs such as supportive housing, counselling services and social rehabilitation programs. As mentioned already by the member for Riverdale, in order to develop an action plan for this expansion, the Minister of Health Mrs (Caplan) appointed the Graham committee, the Provincial Community Mental Health Committee, in September 1987, to develop a model for a comprehensive community mental health program.

The committee, composed of mental health care providers and mental health planners, reviewed 157 written submissions, heard 125 presentations from district health councils, community mental health programs, interest groups and concerned parties at hearings in Thunder Bay, Cornwall, Toronto, Chatham, Oshawa and Sudbury.

The report’s first two recommendations set out broad goals and principles for mental health policy in Ontario, including a comprehensive and accessible system with an emphasis on community-based support for individuals and families that must cope with serious or prolonged mental illness and an integration of services provided by health professionals, community agencies, general hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. The report also stresses the need for co-operation among local, regional and provincial programs and the importance of integrating existing informal support systems such as family and friends.

Further, the government established the Weisstub inquiry in 1988 to determine standards for defining competence under the Mental Health Act. The original mandate was to expand to cover medical patients, the elderly and the developmentally handicapped. The inquiry covers competence to consent to treatment, to gain access to or authorize disclosure of medical records, to appoint a personal representative and to manage personal affairs. I commend the government on all of these initiatives, but all these millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, all the hours of hearings and inquiries, all the good intentions in the world will not help the schizophrenic patient who refuses treatment.

These people have a right to be treated for the illness which afflicts them. Both the patient and the family have a right to a quick and expedient appeal process. Finally, we need to increase our support of research into this and other disorders of the brain, as already mentioned by the member for Brampton South. We know far too little, and this disease costs far too much, to not look for answers.

In fact, according to Statistics Canada, in 1982-83 schizophrenic psychosis accounted for the second-largest total of hospital patient days in the country, even surpassing cancer. I want to remind members again of the human costs associated with this disease. We must not forget the anguish suffered by the families of schizophrenics. Just think of the frustration and heartbreak of watching a loved one gradually creep into an acute episode of this disease. It is now unanimously agreed that institutionalization is the option of last resort for the mentally ill.

For this reason, an explicit goal of mental health legislation, perhaps written into the legislation in the form of an interpretative principle, ought to be the fostering and protection of family and other community ties as well as the fostering and protection of therapeutic relationships. Recognition of the right to receive treatment for a debilitating mental illness should be written into the Mental Health Act as an interpretative principle. We, as legislators, cannot cure this illness. What we can do is provide the atmosphere for humane treatment for every individual in this province.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate and discussion on ballot item 15 and ballot item 16. As it is so close to 12 o’clock, I presume the members will be in agreement to place the motions.

FIREFIGHTING

The Speaker: Mr Wiseman has moved resolution 17.

Motion agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH

The Speaker: Ms Collins has moved resolution 18.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1200.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order of business, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery the ambassador of Peru to Canada, His Excellency Jorge Gordillo Barreto. Also, we have the consul general of Peru in Toronto, Jorge Chavez. Welcome.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Charlton: Today, the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), our leader, and I released a study on electrical energy efficiency opportunities for Ontario. In a few moments I will be sending a copy to the minister and to the critic for the third party.

The study documents the opportunities for electrical energy efficiency in three small samples: one in the residential sector, one in the commercial sector and one in the industrial sector, including costs and the potential savings both to consumers and to Ontario Hydro from those electrical energy efficiency measures.

The findings of our study, which was commissioned for the New Democratic Party caucus, found that 5,300 megawatts of energy potential can be saved in very short order in Ontario at costs far below the costs of the next increment of supply, which would he the next nuclear plant in Ontario.

Not only did we find that we could save 5,300 megawatts, which represents about 1.5 nuclear plants, but we found that the savings documented in this study are only a very small portion of those that potentially Ontario could find.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr Wiseman: Today I wish to bring to the attention of the House the latest of many horror stories about this open and responsive government. For the last three weeks, my office has been trying to arrange an appointment with the Ministry of the Environment for members of the town council of Smiths Falls. We have been met with evasions and we have been ignored.

The town of Smiths Falls wants to build a badly needed sewage plant. The ministry wants it to build this plant, but the plant will cost $10 million, of which the ministry will pay 29 per cent. The ministry somehow feels this is generous, and it leaves only a little over $7 million for a town of less than 10,000 people to pay themselves. The people, understandably, think this it too high.

Statistics Canada tells us that provincial transfer payments to local governments have decreased this year by $823 million, leaving Smiths Falls with several other financial burdens as well. So it decided to sit down with the minister and have a reasonable and forthright discussion to see if a solution could be reached, but the minister is hiding, at first behind his staff and now with evasions and doubletalk.

I see nothing unnatural in my constituents’ request. Why is the minister afraid and why will he not talk to the people of Ontario?

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Tatham: “There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Who are the present sales tax collectors? People such as mill supply houses, selling products such as cutting tools and saws. At the present time a supplier selling saws must charge eight per cent federal sales and then eight per cent provincial sales tax. One supplier makes a daily accounting of taxes collected and makes a monthly remittance to the federal and provincial governments. One supplier told me that at least 10 per cent of his accounting time was spent on sales tax accounting.

If the mill supplier is selling to an industrial customer, that customer may provide a tax exemption from the eight per cent federal sales tax and the eight per cent provincial sales tax. Some material may be eligible for both federal and provincial sales tax exemption; some for one tax and some for another. Some materials like work gloves are specifically federally exempt. It is up to the buyer to stamp a purchase order tax exempt. If so, the supplier sells the article, less taxes, and any disagreement on the exemption is sorted out between the purchaser and the government. Confusing?

By the way, some items like nails pay eight per cent and light bulbs pay 13.5 per cent federal sales tax. Think of the time allocating exemptions, line by line, on an invoice. I wonder how the economy will perform under the new federal tax regime.

“And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr Mackenzie: On 3 March 1987, the 57 employees of Premium Plastics in Richmond Hill approached me over their difficulties with employment standards and getting severance pay as a result of the closure of their plant in 1985.

On 4 April 1987, an order to pay was issued. On 6 May 1987, the company paid to the employment standards branch in trust $214,362.23. On 14 May 1987, the company appealed the order. To this date, 13 July 1989, the workers have never received what belongs to them, in spite of 42 months of total frustration.

After many months of trying to get the minister to appoint an arbitrator to finally resolve this matter, the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) in a letter dated 16 June 1989 now says he can neither meet with the company nor appoint an arbitrator as the matter is before the courts due to the company’s appeal.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) boasts in this House that he is an advocate of business and meets with its representatives regularly. Who is the advocate for the workers?

Whether it is garbage, breaking a social contract like Bill 162 or the simple justice of severance pay owed, the power of the corporations and developers with this Liberal government is painfully obvious. Where is the voice and the advocate for the ordinary workers who are owed this kind of money and are not getting it 42 months later?

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr Harris: I was interested to read Statistics Canada’s independent finding that, in the current fiscal year, transfers from the Ontario Liberal government to local governments in the province have been reduced by $823.1 million this year.

By comparison, I note that transfers from the federal government to this clumsy and scandal-ridden administration grew by $355 million or nearly seven per cent, an increase well above the projected inflation rate. Small wonder this government’s laments about what it likes to call federal offloading ring a bit hollow. While they get $355 million more from the federal government, they give $823 million less to the municipalities. The worst case of offloading, then, is at the provincial-municipal level, where the provincial government, in a transparent effort at newspeak likes to refer to it as the “local option.”

Since this government took office, we have had to live with three massive tax grabs in five years. As a consequence, Ontario taxpayers will contribute twice as much to the Treasury this year as they did in 1984-85, an increase of $15.2 billion.

Where does all the money go? Some of it, we know, goes to an unworkable rent review system, some of it is spent on a disastrous misadventure in insurance regulation or is frittered away by the Ministry of Skills Development, which has yet to prove it can successfully deliver a single program. A lot of it goes down the drain--

The Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time has expired.

FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr D. R. Cooke: Right from the beginning of the free trade negotiations all members of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs -- all three parties -- insisted that the 115 countervail laws had to be controlled in any free trade agreement with that country. By October 1986, the Prime Minister assured us that this would happen. By October 1987, we all realized that the Prime Minister had fooled us.

Nevertheless, some corporate leaders insisted that the free trade deal was advantageous to them. Now, to the chagrin of J. M. Schneider and Hoffman Meats, the US Federal Trade Commission has substantiated a countervail application against Canadian pork sales that, if the politically controlled Department of Commerce decides that in its view we have government subsidies, will result in reduced sales to that country, surplus hogs in our market and potential layoffs at Schneider’s and Hoffman’s.

The US Department of Commerce has until this coming Monday to rule on this subsidy issue and whether or not we, in its view, subsidize pork marketing. I can only fear the worst,

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr Harris: I would be glad to talk a little bit more about the fiscal irresponsibility of this government and the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon). My constituents find it absolutely astounding that Michael Wilson is able to find a seven per cent increase to transfer to Ontario, given the massive debt problems the federal government has and given the fact that its own program spending only goes up 3.5 per cent. It is far less than inflation. They do not understand where he can possibly find the money to give this province.

Second, they do not understand why, when the federal government gives the province seven per cent, the province has to cut transfers to the municipalities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be much better if one member spoke at a time.

Mr Morin: I would like to request unanimous consent to make a statement concerning Bastille Day.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

BASTILLE DAY / PRISE DE LA BASTILLE

Mr Morin: I rise today, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to acknowledge a day of importance for the people of France.

Alors qu’un des plus importants pays démocratiques du monde célèbre les principes de liberté et d’indépendance, cet événement nous donne une occasion do penser à ceux et celles qui luttent encore pour ces principes.

En France, il y a deux cents ans, ce cri :

« Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité » était un cri de ralliement. Aujourd’hui, ce sont des objectifs que l’on cherche toujours à atteindre et ce, partout dans le monde.

I know that all members of the House join with me in sending felicitations to the people of France on this special day.

Mr B. Rae: I could hardly let the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution pass without saying a few words. The history of the world was changed dramatically with the events in France and set in motion the meetings that took place on 14 July, the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789.

Whatever the historical controversies that may surround the events that led up to the Revolution and to the years following 1789, the fact that many people died and were killed, indeed executed, in the course of that Revolution, there can be no question that France gave the world not only many important political traditions and ideas but also a certain spirit of democracy, and that indeed the history of the world is different because of the events that took place: the extraordinary flowering of ideas, of popular movements of people demonstrating in the streets and of groups of all kinds suddenly becoming politically articulate, who for centuries had not been allowed to speak up or speak out.

It led to a transformation of economic and social relationships between people. Of course, in the heyday of the Revolution, they even tried to change the calendar. They changed the whole way in which the world was described. Many of those things did not last. But some things did last, and above all, the values which have been described by my colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr Morin). The values of liberty, equality and fraternity have remained central to the democratic idea wherever that idea is held to be important. I might add that there are some days when we even think they might come here, but we have to continue to struggle for those days.

Par exemple, nous savons très bien que beaucoup de gens ont été tués ou exécutés pendant la Révolution, mais nous savons aussi que c’est vers la fin de la journée du 14 juillet 1789 que les choses les plus importantes se sont produites, c’est-à-dire : la valeur de liberté ; l’égalité -- soit, la valeur du sens que tous les gens sont égaux, qu ‘ils ont des droits égaux en tant que citoyens et des droits politiques ; et la valeur la plus importante, peut-être, dont nous comprenons encore très bien l'importance : la fraternité.

C’est ce sens de fraternité que nous partageons -- la réalité des expériences partagées, en tant qu’êtres humains, et le fait de partager en solidarité notre condition humaine.

Même si nous ne pouvons pas changer les difficultés éprouvées par l’humanité, des difficultés qui sont les conséquences de la vie, nous pouvons tout do même célébrer ce que nous avons en commun. soit la solidarité humaine. C’est peut-être le plus important.

En célébrant cette journée avec la population de la France -- nous savons que certains de nos collègues de la Chambre sont maintenant à Paris, représentant, naturellement, tous nos partis à ces célébrations -- je voulais dire tout simplement : Vive la France ! Vive la fraternité ! Vive l’égalité ! Vive la liberté !

Mrs Marland: I take pleasure in rising today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to recognize 14 July, Bastille Day. The year 1989 represents an enormously significant anniversary for France, for it marks the 200th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille, a crucial event in the French Revolution.

The events of 1789 marked a watershed in the history of the western world. The struggle by the French to achieve democratic rule was an inspiration to all freedom-loving people. The storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789 represents a historic blow to the forces of totalitarianism.

It is appropriate that we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution at the same time that significant breakthroughs are being made in securing the freedom of the world’s people. In eastern Europe and elsewhere, totalitarian governments are falling victim to their own illegitimacy. Openness and reform are the watchwords of this new era, and liberty, equality and fraternity are the underlying principles.

We join the people of France in marking this significant anniversary and we hope that today’s freedom fighters will find inspiration in the brave actions of those who stormed the Bastille and changed the world.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. He will, I hope, recognize that the decisions that have been taken by his government with respect to closure have in fact transformed the nature of our democracy in this House. He will know -- I hope he knows -- that for the first time in our history in this Legislature, the government is not only moving closure on a bill which has been discussed in the Legislature, it is moving closure on amendments presented by the government which have never been discussed by anybody.

How does the Minister of Labour feel about the fact that for the very first time in our history, his government is asking us to consider amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act which have never been discussed by any Legislature, by any legislative body or by any committee of this House, ever?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let’s make a few corrections, first. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the government is moving closure. Obviously, that is not the case. What it is doing and what I see in Orders and Notices and what I have just had an opportunity to read is a time allocation motion which provides a certain number of legislative days to discuss the very amendments he has talked about.

Let me make one other point, if I may. The amendments the Leader of the Opposition is referring to have been on the record for at least two and a half months now. They were part of a document submitted to the standing committee on resources development when it began clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 162.

The final point to make is that were it not for procedural motion after procedural motion put to that committee by the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel), that committee would have had ample time to discuss the very amendments he is talking about.

Mr B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that we have checked as best we can, and we have checked with the clerks at the table, for any precedents in this province for a government moving closure -- or moving time allocation; whatever the minister wants to call it -- on amendments which have never, ever been presented to the House or to any committee, and we could find no such precedent in the history of this province.

We are talking about amendments which the minister discussed in general in January and then moved in some detail at the end of May, a five-month gap during which there was no presentation by him of many of those substantive amendments. We are dealing here with amendments to the law, which will have an effect on hundreds of thousands of potential claimants to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which have never been considered by this Legislature or by the committee.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: Can the minister tell us what precedent there is in this province for this kind of a step by his government?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is passing strange for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest in this Legislature that he is at all interested in ever debating these amendments. When Bill 162 was introduced into this House in June of last year, it was shortly thereafter that the Leader of the Opposition and the critic for workers’ compensation in the New Democratic Party vowed that they would do everything possible to stop the bill.

So I repeat, it is passing strange that the Leader of the Opposition now suggests with his question that he and presumably the member for Sudbury East and other members of his party would like an opportunity to debate these amendments. If he would only read the notice of motion in Orders and Notices, he would see that time has been allotted to discuss those very amendments.

Mr B. Rae: I asked the minister whether he could point to any other time in our history, and he did not answer that question. I would like to ask him this question. Can the minister point to any other Minister of Labour since 1914 who has brought in amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act which, as a package, have been opposed by the very people they are supposed to be helping?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me very briefly answer the first supplementary, first. I do not profess to be a student of parliamentary rules and procedures, but I understand that the notice of motion on the order paper is in entire accordance with history and precedent in parliamentary democracies that use the type of rules we do.

As to his question on whether I can point to a precedent among my predecessor ministers of Labour--

Mr Reville: There were some pretty terrible ones.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me just say to my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville) that the debate on Bill 162 really represents a competition. There are those who believe as a matter of social contract, as the member described a few days ago, that when a worker suffers a permanent injury that worker should have a permanent lifetime pension. That is the policy espoused by his party. I understand that position. As a matter of public policy, it is a defensible position.

The philosophy and the principles underlying Bill 162 are that when a worker suffers a permanent injury -- Mr Speaker, I know I am taking a little time on this, but I think it is worth putting before the House -- the compensation provided to him should include an award --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), I would like to go to the Deputy Premier. It concerns the basic policy question of the handling of the garbage crisis, the way the government has handled it and the various vehicles it has chosen to handle it with.

Just a short five and a half years ago, when the Deputy Premier was in opposition, he was commenting in this House during a debate on regional governments. He had this to say:

“They are overlarge, overexpensive, remote and insensitive. They have the same problems as the government of Ontario has because it is necessary for them to hire masses of public servants, nameless and faceless bureaucrats who administer policies usually initiated by themselves but in the name of elected officials.”

That is the comment the Deputy Premier had to make about regional government. We are handling this garbage crisis --

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: -- not with one regional government but with several, controlled, if you will -- or co-ordinated, to use a more neutral term -- by a bureaucracy established by his government.

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr B. Rae: Does the Deputy Premier not feel that the same problems he identified so acutely back those five and a half years ago apply in spades to the greater Toronto area model which the government is imposing on the people now?

Hon R. F. Nixon: No. I think the essential change that may have escaped the Leader of the Opposition is the sensitivity and capability of the central provincial government dealing with these regions.

The Speaker: Would there be a supplementary?

Mr B. Rae: Yes, I think there would be. The minister’s colleague who is now the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley)--he is not here today, but I thought I would just mention it -- in a similar debate just a couple of years earlier had this to say: “Regional government is not close enough to the people and it lacks financial accountability.”

I want to ask the Deputy Premier: Back in March when the Premier was at the great press conference with all the regional chairmen to discuss this new plan they were presenting, the third aspect of this plan -- to use that term in its loosest possible form -- is that “a new GTA area agency would be established to create and control the overarching waste management system.” That is a quote from the document. It has now been several months since March. There is a feeling in all the regions that this is not happening and that there is nothing in place now to allow that to happen. I want to ask the Deputy Premier: When are we going to see legislation to set up such an agency?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the initiatives of the Minister of the Environment, supported by the Premier, have been most commendable, bringing the regions together through their chairmen and others to make plans for solving the problem that all of them face -- or that all of us face, I suppose one could say. Although not all of us live in the greater Toronto area, everybody here spends a good deal of time here, and in his or her own way contributes substantially to the garbage.

It seems clear, however, that the solution is not going to be one that is imposed by a garbage czar, and that it is going to be worked at the regional level, where the responsibility lies in co-operation among the regions directly affected with the leadership of the Minister of the Environment. I am very proud of his accomplishments in this regard, and he requires some reasonable time to accomplish what I hope the member, perhaps a year or 18 months from now, will agree is a most useful policy improvement.

Mr B. Rae: If the Minister of the Environment were taking a lead role, members might ask why he was at none of the meetings with a number of companies which apparently are going to be involved in this bidding process. He was not even at the meeting with the regional chairmen where this whole process was kicked off. Every indication is that he is not playing in this particular league at all, and that it is being handled in a way that is not accountable to anybody.

Citizens out there want to know what they are supposed to do if and when they object or want to have some control over the plan. The minister himself said back in 1983 that citizens had no control over their own regional governments. Now be has a committee of chairmen of regional governments -- and another layer removed; most of them are not, themselves, individually elected to regional council -- making a decision that is made essentially in private, at meetings also attended by two deputy ministers from his government. We have no way of getting any accountability for these decisions.

I want to ask the Deputy Premier: Where is the democracy, accountability and openness in this process? I do not see it.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not know whether the member wants to enter into an extensive debate as to the democratic positions of regional chairmen. They are slightly different in different regions, but they are there by virtue of legislation passed by this chamber. In each case, it was legislation which I personally opposed. The fact is that the regions are there, they are functioning and the regional chairmen are there under the constitution, presumably, of the legislation approved by this House some years gone by.

I do not feel that they are unconstitutional in any sense. I believe they do reflect the needs of their particular communities, and knowing the regional chairmen, I believe their motivations are at least as pure as the ones exhibited in this House from day to day. They want to do the best for their communities, and with the leadership of this government, particularly the Premier, they are working co-operatively and effectively.

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr Harris: To the Housing minister: I wonder if the minister can explain why she wasted some $60,000 to promote herself in a calendar sent to 110,000 Ontario Housing Corp tenants, a calendar in red, a calendar featuring her picture, a calendar sent and received anywhere from four to six months, in some cases, after the year began. Can the minister explain this propaganda, obviously not for calendar purposes as the year was half over for some of the people who received it? Can she explain this waste of $60,000 when she does not have enough money in her ministry to house people on the waiting list?

Hon Ms Hošek: I have to confess to the member opposite that this idea of a handbook for tenants of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and OHC to give them information about health, safety, fire and various other issues is not our idea. It is an idea we copied from another Housing minister, someone called Claude Bennett, who was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I happen to have here the tenant handbook from 1981, which was produced at that time.

We decided that as we produce a handbook every year, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Ontario Housing Corp we would do a special version of the handbook in a calendar style: this one. What we did was combine the calendar and the handbook in a single year. It costs 53 cents a copy and is available in French. I am happy to make it available to members in the House if they wish to see it.

We did a check this morning, and in Belleville, Midland, Goderich, Welland and North Bay the calendars were received in January and were distributed in January. They contain information that is useful to our tenants in the form of a calendar.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Before I recognize the member for the supplementary, I would say to members who are not in their own seats, please refrain.

Mr Harris: I thought the interjection of the Treasurer (Mr R. F Nixon) was a little more appropriate. It was, “Never again.”

The minister seems to think this calendar equates to a handbook explaining rights to tenants. I would suggest to the minister as well that after 25 years, particularly the last five years, her ministry has absolutely nothing to celebrate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: In the 1987-88 fiscal year, the Housing ministry spent nearly $750,000 on hotels, over and above and not counting ministry staff travelling expenses. This includes nearly $58,000 at the five-star luxury Briars resort and conference centre at Jacksons Point, and nearly $94,000 at the Horseshoe Valley Resort. Can the minister explain why her ministry is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars at luxury resorts when she does not have enough money to house people on her subsidized-housing waiting list?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite should know that this government is doing more for housing than any government he has ever been associated with. Let me point out that in 1984-85, when the member opposite’s government was in power, there were 16 subsidized units in the town of North Bay, which he represents. There are now 265.

The member is extremely interested in hotel bills, and so am I. I wanted to get some numbers for the member, because I know he is very interested in numbers. I was going through the public accounts for 1984-85 and came to the Ministry of Natural Resources, whose minister at the time, I understand, was the person who is asking me this question today, the member for Nipissing. These were the hotel expenses for the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1984-85: the Airlane Motor Hotel, $25,000; Birch Cliff Lodge, $34,000; Senator Motor Hotel, $36,000; the Toronto Hilton Harbour Castle, $76,000. This one really puzzles me: the Lava Mountain Lodge, $849,000.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I was minister for one month of that period --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order

Mr Harris: I do not know what that has to do with the Ministry of Housing, which is what I thought the minister was responsible for. Her ministry’s travelling expenses for 1987-88 -- air, mileage, hotel and food -- came to nearly $2.4 million. If she wants to compare apples to apples, that is double the 1984-85 blue book, the last time a Conservative minister was in the Ministry of Housing.

That is not counting the luxury resorts I have mentioned. It has more than doubled since she came to office. In addition to the Briars and the Horseshoe Valley Resort, we find accounts with the Café Coco, $42,000; Sutton Place, $37,000, and six other luxury hotels or chains ranging from $33,000 to $125,000, totalling $2.4 million.

These are over and above, not counting, staff travel expenses. How can the minister explain this kind of unprecedented spending rampage at luxury resorts when the government waiting lists for assisted housing continue to grow?

Hon Ms Hošek: What is unprecedented is the amount of spending this government has increased in housing over