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

January 26, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L092 - Mon 26 Jan 1987 / Lun 26 jan 1987

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PEEL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

HOSPITAL BEDS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

LABOUR DISPUTE

ADULTS-ONLY APARTMENTS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

TEACHERS' QUALIFICATIONS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

LEGAL AID

TEACHERS' QUALIFICATIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PEEL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA

POLICE PURSUITS

DAY CARE

PETITION

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You may recall on Thursday last the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) on a point of order recounted to the House the situation in which he was involved in the standing committee on public accounts, of which he is a member. He was served with legal papers in circumstances that fly in the face of all the requirements, procedures and precedents of this House and its members.

He indicated, and got agreement on all sides, that whether or not he should be subject to the serving of papers having to do with a civil case, which we in this House feel is not possible under the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act and our predecents, it was the most heinous thing that he be served in that very committee at the time when it was dealing with matters that in some respects were associated with the papers being served.

An affidavit has been made public through the press gallery -- I am not sure whether it was made available to you, Mr. Speaker -- which I want to bring to the attention of the House because I feel it concerns me personally. After participating in the general discussion and sending the whole smelly matter off to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for review, I was asked for comment. I went out and was particularly critical of the process servers and the legal firm -- Stikeman, Elliott -- that had undertaken a procedure that was obviously against our laws and our traditions.

I even indicated as clearly as I could that I thought the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly might very well find that the lawyer who authorized the service might find that his professional services were no longer required by the community of Ontario. I did not use the word "disbarment," although it was in my mind.

I will quote briefly from the affidavit that has been made available, which was signed by the chief of the agency that undertook the service that was discussed:

"I have previously served members of the Legislature at Queen's Park, and my standard practice in such cases is to phone the member in advance to arrange a mutually convenient time for service. Accordingly, on Tuesday, January 20, 1987, I phoned Mr. Gillies's office at Queen's Park and spoke with Ms. Lyn Artmont, whom I understood to be Mr. Gillies's executive assistant. I explained to Ms. Artmont that I had legal documents from the firm of Stikeman, Elliott to serve on Mr. Gillies and herself personally and wished to make arrangements to serve them at a convenient time.

"Ms. Artmont advised me that Mr. Gillies was out of town but would be in the public accounts committee, room 151 at Queen's Park, on Thursday morning and that both of them would be served at that time and at that place.

"I informed Ms. Artmont that I did not wish to interrupt any government proceedings and inquired whether it would be appropriate to serve Mr. Gillies at that time. Ms. Artmont said that it would be quite all right and that I was to go into the committee room and would recognize her because she would be the only woman in the room. She stated that I would recognize Mr.Gillies because he would be sitting at a chair at the committee table behind his nameplate."

The affidavit goes on to describe in detail specifically what occurred. I still maintain that a service under these circumstances is not appropriate. In fact, I do not believe it is legal under the Legislative Assembly Act nor our custom. However, I must say I object to the presentation of the facts associated with the service, which led an easily led person such as myself to go out and offer criticism of an individual based on the facts that had been presented in good faith to all members of the House.

If, in fact, the service had been arranged by the member for Brantford and his employee, then I really feel as a member of this House -- I would not say I was misinformed -- I was seriously inadequately informed on the basis of the information put to the House by the member for Brantford, who was stating that his privileges had been abrogated.

This is the first chance I have been able to have to bring this to your attention, sir. I know members of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly are present. As for me, I am going to ask our colleagues on the committee to raise this matter when it is reviewed so that the facts of the service and all those matters pertaining to it will be fully aired.

I wanted to get up in the House under these circumstances and express my personal objection both to the way the thing was handled by the honourable member in the House and the fact that the process was served under these circumstances, which I feel is unacceptable.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Treasurer, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, has a point of order, but I assume you have granted him the privilege of airing this issue, which he calls "a smelly matter," in front of the House. It appears he is making some degree of assumption relative to the affidavit that was served and the matters that transpired last Thursday during the meeting of the standing committee on public accounts.

I think the appropriate place for this discussion to take place is in the Legislative Assembly committee. I am sure it will consider this document during its deliberations, as it will consider all other matters relevant to this situation. It is very important that we not forget the broader issue and not try to shelter that broader issue by dealing with narrower issues of detail.

Interjection.

Mr. Andrewes: The honourable member laughs.

Perhaps the appropriate time at which these matters can best come forward is in that committee.

Mr. McClellan: I have to confess to sharing many of the same feelings about this matter as my colleague the government House leader. The only thing I would say at this time is that obviously the full circumstances need to be reviewed by the committee on the Legislative Assembly, including whether there was prior knowledge of these documents being served on the member for Brantford and what exactly were the arrangements for the serving of these papers. I have every confidence these matters will be thoroughly pursued by the Legislative Assembly committee.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the comments by the three members who have spoken. Following the discussion that took place last Thursday and the fact that the House sent the matter to the Legislative Assembly committee, I am certain, because it was brought up today and is on record, that the appropriate place it should go, as suggested by one of the people speaking, is to that committee. I hope the members so concerned will make certain it is brought up before that committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I should have mentioned in my point of order that I intended to table a copy of the affidavit. It is public and has been circulated to the press gallery, but so that it is officially seized by the Clerk of the House, I ask one of the pages to give it to him to seize.

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA

Mr. Speaker: Today I would like to inform the members that I have tabled the report of the Ombudsman's opinion, reasons therefor and recommendations following his investigation into the complaints concerning Argosy Financial Group of Canada.

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Concerning the report that was tabled, I confirmed with the Ombudsman that no copies of that report were leaked to the press or to anyone else, that it was tabled appropriately with you and with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. We know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) would have had that report for at least a month. We know the Office of the Premier has had the report since last Thursday.

We have another example of a report that has been leaked to the media before members of the committee or members of this assembly have had an opportunity to receive it first. I ask that you kindly investigate why such leaks of reports seem to have been coming over and over again since this government took power.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether I have the right to conduct such an investigation. To my knowledge, I received the report today and I tabled it today. That is the only information I have.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery a member of the House of Lords, the Right Honourable Lord Shaughnessy. Please join me in welcoming Lord Shaughnessy.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PEEL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the very serious problem pertaining to the amalgamation of the Charlestown Residential School in Caledon with Peel Children's Services, operating under the control of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This amalgamation has created serious economic and emotional strains on the parents of the children involved in the Charlestown program and has caused considerable anxiety throughout the community of Caledon.

While this transfer took place on April 1, 1986, many of the legal matters pertaining to it have not yet been resolved. The board of directors of Charlestown would like to meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and members of the board of Peel Children's Services to see whether these unresolved issues can be clarified and decisions made in the best interests of the children who reside at the school. As this situation has been ongoing for several months, let us hope the Minister of Community and Social Services will agree to meet with the principals in the near future.

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Wildman: I rise to make a statement with regard to the press release issued last Thursday by Algoma Steel Corp. with regard to the Algoma Ore division operations in Wawa. It is most unfortunate that the management of Algoma Steel Corp. decided to release such a statement at this point in very delicate negotiations. As the company itself admitted, the negotiations are ongoing, involving the federal government, the provincial government, Algoma Steel Corp. and the Algoma Central Railway, and progress has been made. If they were going to make any statement, that is the one they should have made and they should have left it at that.

It was most inappropriate to include in such a statement what can only be characterized as a threat to the community of Wawa and the workers at Algoma Ore division. If this government is going to continue negotiations, and I hope it does, it must be prepared to demand job guarantees from both Algoma Steel Corp. and the Algoma Central Railway before any suggestion of subsidization should be completed.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Andrewes: On January 7, the St. Catharines Standard carried a story about 83-year-old Konrad Michalsky, who had spent the night with 17 other patients on stretchers in the emergency room of St. Catharines General Hospital because no beds were available.

What warrants our concern is that this incident is not an isolated occurrence. Hospital overcrowding has become a chronic problem, not only in the St. Catharines area hospitals but also across the entire province. In order not to tie up beds reserved for surgical patients, patients must wait in the emergency department for an appropriate bed, in some instances for up to a week. The noisy, draughty environment and the total lack of privacy put added stress on patients and doctors alike and do little to enhance the quality of care that can be provided.

Doctors have been coping as best they can, discharging their patients a day or two earlier when possible, and beds are allotted to those who are in greatest need. The problem is that we cannot put sickness on hold. Our rapidly ageing population continues to make increasing demands on our health care system. I think the House will agree that this is not a trend that is likely to reverse itself in the near future.

I hope the government will move rapidly to ensure that Mr. Michalsky and others like him have access to first-class treatment in our hospitals. The current crisis management situation falls far short of such guarantees.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to make a presentation to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton). For some time, he has received formal delegations from our community, from the mayor of Vaughan, the mayor of Markham and the mayor of Richmond Hill, looking for support from the Ontario government for the new highway, Highway 407, that would go north of Highway 401.

We in our community in south York region and north Metro Toronto are experiencing great problems because of the lack of good communication routes. The land has been purchased and set aside. What we are waiting for from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is a date when it will commit itself to the beginning of this important route. The first place to start is here in the Legislature, through the Minister of Transportation and Communications, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and Management Board, with approval of the much-needed money.

Whenever a road is built, approximately 90 cents of every dollar go back into the community. For the long-term future, it generates wealth for the whole community because it allows people not only to get to work but also to ship their goods. It allows the economy and the whole society in which we live to prosper.

To help the minister get a feel for it, I would like to have a bumper banner placed on his car -- it is purely up to him to do so - "407 in `87," a slogan by the mayor of Vaughan, Mrs. Jackson. We hope it will become a slogan for our Minister of Transportation and Communications -"407 in `87.''

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Breaugh: I bring to the attention of the Legislature a rather unfortunate set of facts in the dispute between Atlantic Sugar and Local 222 of the Canadian Auto Workers. There was a rather difficult set of negotiations throughout the fall. Shortly before Christmas, the company decided unilaterally to lock out its work force.

Since that time, Ontario law apparently has absolutely nothing to say about lockouts or justification for lockouts, or even about the company providing to the public, to the community and to its employees some reason that the lockout occurred. The sad fact now remains that we have members of that local locked out of their place of work. The company has been asked repeatedly to give the reasons for the lockout and has declined to comment.

Ontario law apparently has a spot in it where there is no requirement on the part of the company to provide even an indication of how long this lockout might continue, whether this is a permanent closure of a facility, or a temporary closure, or a layoff situation, or whether it intends to bargain again. To our knowledge, the Ministry of Labour has not intervened in any meaningful way to bring those negotiations back on track.

I suggest that the Ontario government has an obligation to review the provisions of Ontario labour law that allow this type of situation to go on.

ADULTS-ONLY APARTMENTS

Mr. Gregory: With regard to the bill dealing with adults-only buildings, that is, Bill 7, I have received a great number of telephone calls and letters and have had many conversations with senior citizens who find themselves very much offended by the actions of the present government with regard to condominiums. In many of these cases, senior citizens have sold their homes with the intention of living in condominiums. They have made offers to purchase, accompanied with deposits, only to find that they are now forced to accept the situation that has been imposed on them by the government; that is, they are no longer adults-only condominiums.

I find this very distressing. I hope someone on the government side -- now that it has made this mess -- is prepared to recompense the people who have made deposits. If they withdraw from those deals, they will be obliged to pay out of their own pockets and lose their deposits. I suggest the government, which has caused this mess, should be prepared to recompense them for that loss.

I believe this is a very unnecessary thing. It could have been avoided had it not been for Liberal intransigence on the amendments that were offered by this party. I suggest that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) take a very close look at this matter, because it has become very serious to some of these senior citizens who intended to buy condominiums.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Andrewes: I have a letter from the Niagara Centre for Youth Care, the provincially licensed children's mental health centre for the Niagara region. It points out a number of concerns relative to its current funding situation, which increasingly prevents young people in the Niagara region from having access to its services.

It says that, critically, 55 per cent of its clients are from the city of St. Catharines because no expansion dollars are being directed towards Niagara children's mental health services to permit the establishment of services outside the immediate vicinity. This is an admission of frustration on the part of the agency but, more specifically, that the $10.80 per capita funding across the province compares very poorly with the $4.25 per capita funding in the Niagara region.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have an exceptionally pleasant duty to perform at this time. It is to congratulate the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies on the 75th anniversary of its founding, in the year 1912. I am sure that all members of this Legislature will want to join with me in offering their congratulations as well.

Child welfare in Canada can be said to date from 1893, when the Ontario Legislature passed

An Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Better Protection of, Children. This act provided for the establishment of children's aid societies. The act gave these societies -- and several of them had already been set up -- legal powers to intervene where there was neglect or cruelty and to arrange foster care for children who were being mistreated at home.

Then in 1912, the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies came into being, the hub of the wheel that had already begun to turn towards providing help for some of the province's youngest and yet most important citizens.

Ontario is proud of the work done by the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and its constituent members. We are proud to honour those who so diligently continue and enhance the work of John Joseph Kelso, who was the chief architect of measures to provide child welfare in this province.

Through the early years of this century when a large number of immigrants, many of them children, flocked into Ontario; through the Depression years of the 1930s when survival itself was the major concern of many families; through the Second World War, which produced the first latchkey children, members of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies did not shirk their role in helping children and their families. That singleness of purpose has never slackened. It remained evident in the years after the Second World War in what became known as the era of the baby-boomers.

In our own time of rapid and ever-increasing changes in mores, family groupings and lifestyles, the role of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies has become increasingly important.

My ministry has particular reason to appreciate the active presence of the association. Our working together has achieved an effective consensus in bringing help to children and their families. Among recent examples of such efforts are the revision of the Child Welfare Act in the 1960s, the consultation around the Child and Family Services Act in the 1980s, the development of the initial child abuse standards and guidelines in 1981, and even more recently, the proposed revisions to legislation dealing with adoption disclosure.

As I look towards the future, I am heartened by the certainty that my ministry and the association will continue to move forward together to help create a climate of society in which our children can develop and move confidently into the world of tomorrow.

I notice representatives of the association in the visitor's gallery and to them I want to say, "Congratulations to you, the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, on your work and on your 75th anniversary."

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members are aware of the highly critical comments made by a provincial court judge in Toronto last week concerning the operations and management of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The criticism came out in Judge D. T. Hogg's findings following the trial of a liquor store manager for fraud.

Before I touch briefly on the major areas of Judge Hogg's comments, I want to assure the members that I take such criticism very seriously. The LCBO is a monopoly empowered by law to distribute and sell alcoholic beverages in Ontario. Operating as it does without competition, it has both a moral and legal responsibility to carry out its unique role with the greatest possible efficiency and integrity. To do otherwise is a clear abuse of public trust. We are already aware of some of the problems identified by Judge Hogg. It is not new to say that, in response, changes and improvements are definitely under way.

None the less, I still find these criticisms most disturbing and I know LCBO Chairman Jack Ackroyd finds them disturbing as well.

On Friday, I informed Mr. Ackroyd that I expect a full and comprehensive report on the success of the LCBO's ongoing plans to upgrade both its operations and management. In the interim, I have directed Mr. Ackroyd to carry out an immediate review of the LCBO's management capacity. If he finds any shortfall in this regard, I have informed him that he has my full support in taking whatever action is required. To accelerate the improvements already under way and to focus the board's energies on the problem areas referred to by both the recent Provincial Auditor's report and Judge Hogg, I have urged Mr. Ackroyd to retain outside management support and expertise immediately.

I feel it is important that the members have a brief overview of what has been going on at the LCBO in the key areas of Judge Hogg's criticism.

With reference to his statements regarding the management of the board, the chairman had already identified this problem and a firm of business consultants was engaged to review the senior management structure completely. Their recommendation that we create three executive vice-presidents reporting directly to the chairman has been carried out. The key position of executive vice-president of administration was filled by seconding a senior administrator from my ministry just four months ago.

As members will recall, Justice John Osler raised this issue during the royal commission in 1986, and after hearing extensive testimony from the chairman and senior staff, was satisfied that appropriate steps were being taken to rectify problem areas.

Prior to Judge Hogg's criticism the LCBO was reviewing its financial, auditing and accounting systems. A major accounting firm will soon be retained to review the board's accounting and auditing procedures. Its first priority will be an immediate review of financial control and practices. The LCBO has also gone to tender on a computerized cash register system that will address the judge's concern about the need to have a printed record of each liquor sale.

I have previously addressed the matter of the Durham warehouse in this House. Most of the details presented in the case before Judge Hogg occurred during the startup of the facility. While the operation of this warehouse has improved, it is not yet at 100 per cent efficiency. The board had a professional engineering firm audit the system last summer, and its recommendations are now being implemented. It should be remembered that in facilities of this size and sophistication it takes time to become completely operational. I am satisfied that we are making steady progress in this regard.

Judge Hogg criticized the board's security arrangements. About two years ago, the LCBO seconded Sergeant Kevin Balch from the Metropolitan Toronto Police to deal with its security problems. He has carried out several security studies and many improvements have been made, including an increase in security staff and prosecutions.

To put losses to theft and pilferage into perspective, it should be understood that the Retail Business Council of Canada finds that average losses in other large retailers about are about 15 times greater than those at the LCBO.

My comments are not to be seen as a defence against criticism but rather an as effort to put the overall issue in context. I want to assure the Legislature that major improvements in the operation and management of this large and important institution must and will be made. Whatever it takes, we will do. The people of Ontario deserve nothing less.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understand that earlier you allowed a point of order by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) regarding the events of last Thursday. In view of the fact that it was allowed and I was absent, I wonder whether you would allow me the opportunity to speak to the point.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed to.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) apparently sees his role in this matter to be that of an agent for the law firm of Stikeman, Elliott, which, as I understand it, brought an affidavit into the House that calls into question the events of last week. For the record, I want all members of the House to understand the facts, as I do, facts that are apparently misunderstood by the law firm Stikeman, Elliott.

On Monday last week, when I was on business for my party in Ottawa, the agent for the law firm of Stikeman, Elliott called my office and asked when I would be available that week to receive a hand-delivered letter from that law firm. My

schedule for the subsequent four days was given to that agent over the phone. They were told I would be out of town on Monday and on Tuesday morning. They were told where I would be on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday and Thursday of last week. The implication, either in the affidavit or in the comments of the Treasurer -- and, incidentally, in the comments of the leader of the third party in Brantford on Friday -- was that an appointment had been made between my assistant and the law firm to appear at the standing committee on public accounts and serve me with the writ at that time.

There are two very key points here:

(1) No such appointment was made, nor would I have advised any member of my staff to make such an appointment.

(2) The implication, which I took from press reports of the leader of the third party's comments in Brantford, that I had any prior knowledge of the incidents that occurred on Thursday morning of last week is completely false and scurrilous. I believe the leader of the third party, if indeed he made the comments referred to in the Brantford Expositor, owes me an apology for calling into question my word on this matter.

I also want to disabuse the Treasurer, the House or anyone else on this point: I had no prior knowledge of the intentions of the law firm Stikeman, Elliott and neither Ms. Artmont nor myself would have counselled them to make such a presentation before the committee.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the committee will review the matter extensively.

RESPONSES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Cousens: We celebrate an important anniversary today for the children's aid societies in Ontario. Seventy-five years of service to young people and children within our community is something we should all stop and remember. We should realize it is no accident that the children's aid societies are performing their function in a most professional and careful way, keeping in mind the needs of our children.

People such as George Caldwell, the executive director of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, represent and are typical of the kind of dedication we have seen with children's aid societies for these many years. It starts with professional people with a deep and genuine concern for the welfare and wellbeing of our young people, who are able to give of themselves in a selfless way so that these children will have a chance. Whether it be through counselling, support mechanisms, adoption or a number of different services that the children's aid society offers, it is one place in this province that people know there is a group doing a job that counts.

I share in this day of celebration for the children's aid societies, as do all members of this Legislature, realizing that the key is the quality of the people who are performing these functions. Let us hope the next 75 years are not as fraught with problems the past year has been. We saw two major strikes, one in Metropolitan Toronto and one in Ottawa, each caused in part by a breakdown in the province's providing funding to the societies to provide the services that are essential. Perhaps today on this 75th anniversary the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) can look at his books to see whether there are any additional funds that can be invested, not spent, for the wellbeing and care of our children.

There is a second concern that should be on our minds as we celebrate this anniversary, and that is the important role of the volunteers who run the different children's aid societies in this province. Again, these are people who care about young people and very much want the children's aid societies to reach their goals. I detect an increasing sense of frustration on the part of those volunteer boards with the amount of government interference, regulation and control and with government being late with its funding. Can they continue to be able to make the kind of contribution they want to or are they being more and more controlled by a government that wants to take over?

We would not survive in this province if we did not have strong volunteer boards continuing to make a contribution. In the future we should have an emphasis to continue to build and strengthen those boards so that they will be able to fulfil their jobs in an honourable, complete and satisfactory way. There is now a sense of frustration on these boards that they are being held back and controlled. I hope the next 75 years will see these boards proceed with the fresh vigour and confidence that can be instilled when there is a trusting relationship between the government of Ontario and the local boards.

That relationship is deteriorating. It is weakening because of the breakdown between this government and those groups.

There must be an ingredient of trust and a sense of purpose within those boards. That trust is not as prevalent now as it was a couple of years ago. I challenge the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the government not to allow these volunteer boards to be destroyed or to disappear. Part of the strength of the children's aid societies is the personal representation by volunteers who care. The combination of the three working together -- the government of Ontario, the professional staff and the volunteer boards -- to serve our young people has to be the way to do it. Our young people are our best and most valuable resource.

As we celebrate this 75th anniversary, may the children's aid societies continue to do their job but with the support mechanisms around them to allow them to do it as well as they have in the past.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a privilege to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to join in the congratulations on the 75th anniversary of the children's aid societies in Ontario and to welcome here prominent members of the provincial association.

The CASs have had an impossible task over the years, which has often been made more impossible by succeeding governments. They have been given the responsibility of protecting the children who are most vulnerable in our society and of intervening in the sacred family unit as an arm of the state in such a way as to look after the best interests of these children. To do that at any time is a difficult thing and often requires the wisdom of Solomon.

There have been many occasions during the 75 years of the children's aid societies when they might have wished they had not been charged with that responsibility in individual cases. I think back to the Kim Anne Popen case and other cases of child abuse and child death in Ontario and to the way the children's aid societies were often left holding the bag for government incompetence, lack of training and lack of funding. Their history has not been an easy one.

In recent years, we have made it even more difficult. We have changed the Child and Family Services Act in such a way as to require of the children's aid societies a major preventive role, a role of trying to slow down and stop the numbers of children who are taken into care and become wards of the state, of trying to intervene with their families beforehand to allow them to maintain themselves as a normal, functioning family.

The CASs have been asked to do this at a time when they have been given decreased amounts of funding. They have been used as a buffer by past governments, and I regret to say by this government, even though its members used to complain when they were in opposition about the way the government of Ontario would restrict increases to the children's aid societies to four per cent or the like and then expect them to produce extra programs to prevent harm coming to our most vulnerable children.

The Minister of Community and Social Services and his colleagues now do exactly the same thing, causing labour unrest in various parts of this province among the children's aid societies, at the same time as they and the past government were willing to intervene in places such as Kenora and take over the agency there when its demands for more money to do its impossible task got too large.

It is perhaps a time, at the 75th anniversary, when we should review the roles of the children's aid societies and the way the local boards are manipulated and used by government and come up with a system which either gives them the real independence we want for them and proper funding to protect children or puts the responsibility back properly with the government, which seems to want to duck that responsibility most of the time.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Swart: I want to say a few words about the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). I am sure he would agree and everyone else in this House would agree with me that we have to be concerned about the degree of discredit now taking place with regard to our public institutions and, for that matter, our democratic government.

What is happening in Ottawa, the resignation of three cabinet ministers here, and now this latest report on the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, is certainly making the public more cynical than ever about public institutions. What Judge Hogg has said is a pretty serious condemnation of what has been going on in the LCBO. The changes the minister proposes and the changes that have already taken place seem to deal with establishing a system that will inhibit these practices in the future. I commend him for bringing them in, but the policing has to be effective and ongoing.

The calls that I and many other members have received over the years have implied corruption, and I suggest to the minister that it runs very deep. Those who have been involved in this at every level should be disciplined. I am not sure the minister's statement goes far enough in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Swart: He has to be prepared to take the necessary disciplinary steps that may be necessary to assure that this political can of worms is finally --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please take his seat. That completes the allotted time for ministers' statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Education. Can he tell us what discussions he has undertaken with school boards and the Ministry of Health regarding educational programs in our school system on the AIDS virus?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the honourable member knows, it was just over a year ago, working with my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), that we prepared a fact sheet and other related materials on this matter. We had that material disseminated through the Ontario school system, and we have been working with others in the school community to ensure that there is proper leadership and sensitivity in this area. I assure the member that we in the Ministry of Education will continue to do everything we can to react to the current situation.

Mr.

Andrewes: Given the fact that the Ministry of Health's contribution in terms of education and support appears to be around the $200,000 mark -- and that compares to a total budget of that ministry of $10 billion -- given the fact that in Britain alone some $40 million has now been committed to education and publicity to try to acquaint people with the serious problems of the AIDS virus, and given the fact that the Minister of Health's recent response to a question relative to AIDS was that people were best advised to "exercise caution," when might we expect the Minister of Education to take some greater initiatives that would provide a better understanding of the virus and encourage preventive health programs to limit the spread of AIDS?

Hon. Mr. Conway: What we have done to date has been well received and, in our view, positive. There is more to be done, to be sure. Very shortly, we will be publishing our new guidelines for health and physical education, which will deal with AIDS. I recall to the member's attention very wise counsel offered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who, speaking to the subject some time ago, indicated it was a matter where local school authorities had an important role to play and that we had to be very careful we took such action as was sensitive to community situations.

In the coming weeks, we will be working with others in the educational community to ensure that every reasonable action that can be done in the area of health and education will be done.

Ms. Fish: As the minister is aware, the growing concern about the spread of AIDS exists particularly among young people who have been sexually active and sexually experimental. The minister is also aware that the Toronto Board of Education filed a request with his ministry more than a year ago to receive curriculum guidelines on teaching about AIDS and the prevention of the spread of AIDS within Toronto schools. It is still awaiting a reply. Will the minister share with us when he is prepared to issue a full and complete curriculum for teaching about AIDS and its prevention within the public schools?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I indicated a moment ago, our health and phys-ed guideline is being revised to take this situation, among others, into account. I expect that guideline will be available for distribution in the not-too-distant future. I know of the honourable member's interest. She can rest assured I will keep her fully informed.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member will be pleased to know that the Ministry of Health has been working in concert with the people in the community of Elliot Lake to bring all possible applicants who are interested in Elliot Lake to the attention of the local hospital and facilities. I understand there are people who are interested in practising there. In the meantime, there are locums in place to provide anaesthetic services in Elliot Lake.

Let me try another one. Last week in the community of Marathon, Jim Marzolf, a drug store operator and pharmacist operating the Marathon Drug Association Ltd., opted out of the Ontario drug benefit plan. This now leaves some 200 residents, most of them senior citizens, without local access to prescriptions under the ODB plan.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again, the member will be pleased to know that the Ministry of Health has been making arrangements with respect to the people in Marathon. An

article I read indicated there were about 150 seniors and people on social assistance programs. Arrangements have now been made for the supply of medications, either through the local pharmacy, which is getting in touch with other pharmacies to have the medications delivered, or through other arrangements that are being put in place.

We are well aware of the Marathon situation and we have taken steps to assist those people to get their medications.

Mr. Pierce: By way of supplementary, I do not think it is a question of the minister not being aware of the problems that are being put forward by the communities in northern Ontario.

As of January 1, 1987, the community of Atikokan, which has a population of 40,000, no longer has an anaesthesiologist and no longer has a surgeon. Mothers of small children who require minor operations for tonsillitis and appendicitis must now travel 200 miles to a doctor. It requires additional time spent in the community waiting for the child to be released from the hospital.

When the minister talks about being aware of the situation, that is all well and good. We are all aware of it. When is the minister going to do something about it? When is he going to make doctors available to the people in northern Ontario who require them?

This government is not using the BC situation, in which the issuance of licences is used to direct people to particular communities. At this stage, we are following the incentive programs that we believe will assist people to be accommodated in the smaller, less urban centres for practice purposes. We are also pursuing actions that will help specialists to travel to smaller centres.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions about a subject I know is near and dear to his heart, the subject of car insurance. Statistics Canada has just come out with a new set of figures for the first three quarters of 1986 with respect to car insurance across Canada. These figures show that, for the first three quarters of 1986, the insurance companies on underwriting alone -- that is, the difference between claims paid out and premiums received -- made $497 million. That is only car insurance companies.

Can the minister indicate his views and the views of the Liberal Party with respect to that kind of difference between money taken in and claims paid out?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the leader of the third party for his question. However, he neglected to break down the figures. I am sure he will admit, if he looks at the figures, that notwithstanding the broad statement about what the profits were, in Ontario in automobile insurance alone, when it comes to underwriting profit, the insurance companies still pay out more in claims than they take in as premiums.

Mr. Rae: That is not the information we have from Statistics Canada. The only statistics we have from the minister and his ministry date back to 1984. If he has some more recent statistics to provide to the House, he has not been giving them for the past two years.

However, in the light of this information from Statistics Canada, how does the minister feel about the most recent set of television ads being run by the Insurance Bureau of Canada? I have the advertising copy supplied to me by the Vickers and Benson advertising company, advertisers for the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They make a series of claims. They say at the end of one ad, which I am sure the minister may have seen, "We want you to know that the cost of your insurance is driven by what it costs to insure you and nothing more."

In the light of the facts I have just given the minister from Statistics Canada, does he feel this is a fair and accurate account of how money works in the insurance business today?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know, as I have said before and I am certainly prepared to back it up -- and if he takes a look at the Statistics Canada figures, he will see it is true -- in Ontario the insurance company is in a negative position when it comes to underwritng profits.

That having been said, the member should also know this does have a direct relationship. Even before the western provinces got into the insurance business, the underwriting costs in Ontario were always almost double. The loss ratios in Ontario are almost double those of every other jurisdiction in Canada, and that has nothing to do with the companies themselves. It has to do with the fact that we have the largest concentration of drivers. I have told the member this before. In all of Manitoba, there are 600,000 drivers; we have six million.

The member should know, and I am sure he will welcome this information, that in November I stated that the Manitoba automobile insurance plan thought it was going to lose $4 million. In December, it thought it was going to lose $10 million. On January 12, the Winnipeg Free Press stated --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister would like to --

Mr. Rae: I am fascinated by what the minister has to tell us. We can have an argument in this place and outside about the facts of the case. However, there are now ads taking place across Ontario for a very well-known reason. Those ads have a political purpose. What I am trying to get the minister to say is whether he thinks the ads, which are being placed by his very good friends in the insurance bureau, are a fair and accurate assessment of what is going on in the insurance business in this province, and indeed in Canada.

Is it a fair statement to say, "We want you to know that the cost of your insurance is driven by what it costs to insure you and nothing more"? Is it fair to say that there are no other factors involved, such as a little thing called profit, when it comes to what the car insurance companies in this province are bilking the car drivers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Far be it from me to comment on the merits and benefits of advertising. The New Democratic Party has taken it upon itself to enter into an advertising campaign, and no one has asked me whether I think there is any merit in its campaign. I would suggest that when it comes to the industry, it is a free market. It has the opportunity and the privilege of stating its case to the public, and whether the public buy it or not is their business.

Mr. Rae: It is nice to know we have a Minister of Financial Institutions who is out there to protect the consumer.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister explain the following set of facts? Can he explain why we are now at the 11th hour in our relationship with the state of New York; the Durez site property and the dumping of chemicals by Occidental; the extraordinary information that has not been made available to this House by the minister but that he has apparently shared with his colleague in New York, Hank Williams?

Can the minister explain why all of this has taken place; why we in Ontario are in the dark with respect to the degree of dioxin poisoning, when the minister apparently has information; why the ministry's response has been so utterly ineffectual; and why, at the 11th hour, we still have no guarantee that that site is going to be cleaned up in a way that will preserve, inasmuch as it can now be preserved, the integrity and quality of the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am glad the member for York South has raised an issue of this kind. He would know that since I have been the Minister of the Environment, one of the issues I have consistently been pressing with our American neighbours has been the situation that exists in Niagara Falls, New York.

One of the reasons we do not have an agreement that has been signed with the Americans -- I have been criticized in many quarters for this -- in terms of an overall accord in this issue is that I have refused to sign such an agreement until such time as we have in such an agreement a specific

schedule for the reduction of contaminants and a specific percentage of reduction that would be agreed to by both sides. In addition to this, I have asked for a meaningful reference to the excavation of those sites immediately adjacent to the river.

My ministry and officials of my ministry have communicated to our American neighbours on many occasions our concern about the situation as it relates to contaminants on the other side and our demands that they be cleaned up. We will continue to press this case, as we have in the past, and I would expect that, as a result of the continuing efforts and the support of the member for York South and others in this House, our voice will be added to. However, I assure the member that on very many occasions here in Canada, in the United States and in New York state I have put forward that case.

Mr. Rae: The minister really cannot be allowed to get away with this kind of thing. He has had his knees cut off with respect to Kimberly-Clark. When he was in opposition, he was up every day with respect to what is going on in the Niagara River. Now that he is the minister in a position to do something, we have a minister who is unable to inform this House of what is going on with respect to the poisoning of one of the major international waterways between Ontario and New York state.

When New York state officials have said there is no question that this dump is contributing to the deterioration of the Niagara River and the lawyer for the New York Attorney General has said, "The Love Canal sewers are not as bad as this, in terms of the mountains of chemicals" -- and that is a direct quote from Mr.

Washington, who is the lawyer for the New York Attorney General -- can the minister explain why he has made no statement in this House with respect to this source of contamination and with respect to information which he has about how badly poisoned that dump site is and how bad the poisoning of the Niagara River is as a result? Why has he kept those facts from the House? Why has he not made a statement?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I ask the leader of the third party, where has he been in the last while?

Mr. McClellan: You have not been in the House. You have been hiding.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have. I have been in the House more than the member has and more than his leader has.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The leader of the third party --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind members that interjections are out of order and answering interjections is not in order. If the minister would like to point his finger, maybe he can point it at the Speaker and speak through the Speaker to the member.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to my friend the member for York South, who is still my friend: obviously, he has read a poll that says environmental issues are important issues, so every day in the House the leader of the third party is going to get up and ask an environmental question. They are important, and I think he has a genuine concern. I do not want to indicate he does not, because I sincerely believe the member has a concern about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In answer to his question, I have consistently stated the position of the province on this site and on other sites. As the member knows, we have been criticized for being dogmatic on this issue, for having standards that are too high in this issue and for constantly harping at our American friends. That is criticism I am prepared to sustain. But on a consistent basis, I have commented very strongly to American authorities about this site and other sites and indicated that we feel there should be an immediate cleanup. I continue to do so and I will continue to do so beyond this day.

Mr. Rae: The minister has an overdose of Walter Mitty disease. He seems to think everybody around here is saying he is too tough. There is nobody in this Legislature, and certainly nobody in our party, who thinks the minister has been too tough. Our concern is that the minister has not stood up -

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would not say that.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: When testing shows that the storm sewer is contaminated with 115 parts per billion of dioxin near the plant site to 15 parts per billion near the river and the concentrations of chlorobenzenes are more than two per cent of the sediment -- 23,000 parts per million -- can the minister explain why his ministry has yet to release full analyses of sediment samples and spot-tail shiners, which were allegedly done in November 1985? Why has the House not seen that information? Why has the minister been concealing that information from the House?

Why has he been wrapping all his work in a maze of helium and in a maze of hot air rather than taking the kind of action that would make a difference to people?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The leader of the third party is aware that on a very consistent basis, I have drawn this to the attention of our American friends. I have commented in this House; I have commented in public on many occasions; I have said this in Niagara Falls, New York; and I have said this in Buffalo, New York, in Washington and in New York City. On a consistent basis, we have found the information to indicate that the problem that exists on the other side is not satisfactory. That is why I have pressed it in a number of meetings with Hank Williams.

I have pressed this in a meeting in Washington with Lee Thomas. My ministry and I have pressed this issue on a consistent basis with a number of officials. For the leader of the third party to suggest that this has not been the case is simply not accurate.

When the leader of the third party talks about the fact that people on his side of the House have never said the Minister of the Environment is too tough, he had better check back with some statements that have been made over the past year.

TEACHERS' QUALIFICATIONS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The teaching profession has always striven to attain high standards and high quality of education for students in Ontario. Why would the minister make recommendations today that threaten to undermine the excellent quality of education provided for students in Ontario by allowing teachers to instruct in courses for which they are not qualified? Can the minister explain the ludicrous position his ministry announced this morning?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank the honourable member for his interest and for his question. I will offer a response, regretting the lack of attendance in the assembly this afternoon of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) who while Minister of Education began a process of review of regulation 262 some four and half years ago, some reference to which was made in the papers this morning. I want the member to know that what was spoken of in the morning press in no way represents government policy. It represents, rather, efforts to consult with the education community about ways and means in which we might address a number of the concerns that have been identified.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would not want my friends from Burlington and Scarborough to become too exercised about what is a draft regulation that has been put out, I say to my friend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), for consultation. Neither she nor her colleagues should conclude that this in any way represents government policy because it does not represent government policy.

Mr. Davis: The minister, as always, is full of wind. One of the problems. and the minister knows it, is that with regulations -- he can put them out all he wants -- he is quite capable of changing them any time he wishes and there does not have to be any consultation nor does there have to be any public discussion. However, that is not my question.

More emphasis in education now is being placed on providing qualified guidance teachers to assist young people in making career choices in the selection of subject areas, and where required on providing personal counselling. By the recommendations today, it appears that his actions in effect say, "I know you are deeply concerned about your child selecting the right courses and finding a job when he or she is finished, but I want you to know that I now am going to allow unqualified teachers to help your child make that important decision."

What does the minister say today to parents and students who because of that

article will understand that there now will be unqualified guidance teachers instructing their children in course selections that will affect them for the rest of their lives?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I look at and listen to the member and think about the

preamble to his supplementary, given the choice, I would rather be full of wind.

I want to say to the parents and to others that this is not government policy. This is but a draft regulation that tries to produce, and I think will effectively produce, an important and constructive consultation out of which will come a change in government policy, but only after that consultation.

In conclusion, as the very distinguished former chairman of the Scarborough Board of Education knows from his long and distinguished experience in that responsibility, there are thousands of letters of permission that authorize teachers to instruct in areas for which they do not have the required qualifications. As we move forward, I am sure the consultations will elicit from the member the kind of advice that will help us resolve this interesting situation.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I wonder whether the draught was caused by the wind.

I have a question to the Minister of Health. Will he confirm that the locums the ministry has going to Elliot Lake to provide anaesthetic services are not available every day of the week and that if an emergency occurs on a day when they are not present in Elliot Lake, patients have to be transferred a great distance, probably to Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie, for an emergency operation?

If that is the case, can he also confirm that the locum system does not deal with the question of providing full-time anaesthetist services in Elliot Lake and that the underserviced areas program has not been successful in doing that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot confirm what the member says, only because I have not heard that suggested. I will look into the circumstances and see whether locums are there on a daily basis. I will then get back to the member.

With respect to the other question, it is my understanding that there are people interested in establishing practices in Elliot Lake. From that standpoint, our underserviced areas program is continuing with the recruitment process in assisting the people at the hospital to accomplish a full-time residence in the community by people trained to deliver anaesthetics.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister indicate to us how many medical positions, for both specialists and general practitioners, are vacant in communities in the north that are under the underserviced areas program?

Considering that is a considerable number, will the minister follow the lead of New Brunswick? That province has established a program for medical students to attract them back for summer employment to medical institutions, so they can develop some sort of relationship with those medical institutions in those communities as a way of encouraging them to set up practice in those communities when they graduate.

Will the minister consider that in relation to the proposed program announced by his colleague the Minister for Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) for northern student employment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The suggestion which has been made by the member about attracting students via the bursary program has been made by a number of his colleagues from northern Ontario with respect to some programs. Last year, I believe at estimates, the same suggestion was made by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and a couple of his colleagues.

I do not have an exact number of placements which are being requested. I do know a very active group of people from northern Ontario underserviced-area communities was here in southern Ontario in late October for a week. They pursued a number of leads with respect to people who would be interested in attending and setting up practice in northern Ontario. The rate of success of that, I understand, has been very encouraging.

There will probably be further decisions to be made very shortly by individuals who have recently graduated from some of the programs. I expect we will be able to assist the community in Elliot Lake, for instance, with some of its difficulties, if the leads continue to be as promising as they already are.

LEGAL AID

Mr. Brandt: My question to the Attorney General, if I can get his attention, concerns the issue of legal aid. Is the minister aware that in connection with the process used for the approval of assistance through legal aid, there has been a directive go out of his ministry indicating that the number of cases that can be processed in the individual areas has been reduced?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will make inquiries about that. I find it difficult to understand the point the member has made. As he undoubtedly knows, legal aid is run on behalf of the public by the legal aid committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Any determinations about the way it should be delivered, apart from the statutory and regulatory framework, are determinations that are made by the Law Society of Upper Canada. However, I will undertake to look into the matter and report to the honourable member.

Mr. Brandt: The Attorney General is aware that the funding for legal aid comes from his ministry, and if the number of cases is going to be reduced, that funding will be reduced as well. My understanding is that the process being used at the moment for approval of these particular cases has resulted in fewer cases being approved. The end result of that means fewer dollars will be provided by his ministry to pay for that service. Therefore, it does have an impact on the Ministry of the Attorney General. I would appreciate his looking into the matter to determine whether this is happening.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will do so, as I said. As the member perhaps also knows, the requisition for funds comes on a certificate from the legal aid committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada, which simply recites the amount it has contracted to spend over the preceding quarter and invites a cheque from the Treasurer to cover that sum. Therefore, the decision about what services will be provided and to which cases will be made in the first instance by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

TEACHERS' QUALIFICATIONS

Mr. Allen: I would like to return to the question of the deregulation of teachers' qualifications with the Minister of Education. The minister suggested in his response to the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) that this was not some ministry policy. Of course, it is not, but it is a proposal and apparently a serious one. The minister, as he has confessed to us, is taking a Tory initiative and bothering the boards of the province with it, but he is apparently trying to distance himself from it at the same time, as he has spoken in this House.

Can he tell us what possible attraction a policy of deregulation of teacher qualifications can have for him and what possible evidence he can give us that the deregulation of teacher qualifications to any significant degree would do anything but undermine the quality of education in this province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is important for me to try again to help my honourable friends opposite understand the process.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, please.

Mr. Davis: Teachers love it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have a clear understanding, and after the weekend, I have a very clear vision of the future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Response.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am trying, Mr. Speaker.

From time to time, we in the Ministry of Education, recognizing that a whole host of regulations flow from the Education Act, try to ensure that we are as contemporary, as relevant, as responsive and as positive as we can be. We have put out a draft regulation that touches on a whole series of questions for consultation and response.

One of the areas that is addressed in the current draft amendment has to do with teacher qualification. I want the honourable member to know this does not represent government policy. We do not work as the old administration worked. We go forward asking for response, and that is what we are seeking to do. On the basis of that consultation, we will take such action as we deem appropriate to meet the current and expected needs.

Mr. Allen: This is astonishing indeed. Is the minister really telling us he is prepared to indulge in process without purpose? Is he telling us --

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Allen: I am completing that question.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Unlike the average democratic socialist, I am not prepared to be indulgent and I am certainly not prepared to indulge in process without purpose.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question of the Minister of Health. In April 1986, the Simcoe County District Health Council recommended that the government provide the necessary funds to permit the construction of a new hospital in Barrie. In November 1986, a public institution inspection panel, citing crowded hallways, acute storage problems, old and inadequate laundry facilities and a shortage of beds at the Royal Victoria Hospital, also called on this government to provide new funds for a hospital.

Can the minister tell me whether he plans to provide the funds for a new hospital during the 1987-88 fiscal year, or does he intend to treat the residents of Simcoe county as second-class citizens when it comes to health care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have more resolve in this party than his obvious predecessors did in theirs. This thing has come to my attention several times at the questioning of this honourable gentleman, who rightfully has raised this question on a couple of occasions. He is impatient with the planning process which we have put in place to look at the facilities and understand in a logical and realistic way the needs of the community of Barrie and accommodate those in thorough planning for that area.

Unlike previous Ministers of Health in this province, I will not announce on a whim, as happened in 1979, that there will be a hospital or, as happened on one occasion in 1983 when a particular person drove through Barrie and happened to stop off at the local radio station, say, "Yes, we will build a hospital," without planning for and understanding what is needed in the area.

We will thoroughly plan and put in place the appropriate services required for the people in Barrie. Like the honourable gentleman, I am very much committed to a first-class health care system for all of the communities right across Ontario. Whether it be Atikokan, St. Catharines, Elliot Lake or whatever, we will expand the opportunities of the people of the province to receive first-class health care.

Mr. Rowe: As evidenced by the minister's firm commitment and flabbergab in this House, I might say that in 1986 he established a new detox centre behind our antiquated Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie to help Simcoe county combat one of the highest drug and alcohol abuse rates in this province; but he has flatly refused to provide the necessary funds to permit the establishment of the much-needed follow-up care and long-term treatment. If the minister does not want to help them build a new hospital in Barrie, why does he not at least provide the funds to permit the detox centre to carry out its essential service?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member will probably realize that in terms of planning for health care needs we use the resources and facilities of the district health council to help us plan what is required and what should be ranked in priority.

We have made an incursion into the provision of better service for those with alcohol and drug addictions province-wide. It may have been that the member's facility was unfortunately not one of the programs which received funding this past year, but that does not mean in any way we are not committed to the very valuable work done at the community level by alcohol and drug addiction program providers.

We are examining any number of options in terms of the programs that are available province-wide, or community-wide in the Simcoe area, and we must then weigh those competing interests and fund those which appear to have the best chance of providing increased service, in some cases to areas where there was no service before. We can only hope to increase service in those areas where there was some lack of attention in years gone by.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I want to refer back to the answer he gave to a question last Wednesday in which he attempted to discredit the financial situation with regard to the Manitoba public insurance system. In this regard, I have sent him a letter from the minister in Manitoba.

I wonder whether the minister noted on page 2 the profit and loss year by year for the Manitoba auto insurance plan. Including last year, it shows profits in 11 years and losses in four. The total profits are now $54 million, including this year. There is $321 million in reserve investments against unpaid claims.

In posing my question, I want to use the exact scenario and phraseology used by the minister last Wednesday in translating his $10-million loss in Manitoba last year to a $100-million loss in Ontario if we had the same system. Is it not true that if Ontario had a system such as Manitoba's for the same number of years, the people of Ontario would have total surpluses of $540 million and reserves in investments of $3.21 billion?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased the member for Welland-Thorold asked that question, because it gives me an opportunity to respond further to the question of his leader, to which I responded earlier today. On Monday, January 12, the Winnipeg Free Press ran a lead editorial, which said, "Bad News for Motorists."

It talks about the number of dollars that have been lost by the auto plan in Manitoba. As I have said, it states that not only is the shortfall this year going to be $17 million -- that is after investment income and underwriting losses -- but they also project at least a $17-million shortfall next year. If the member is going to say, "What if we had done that in the past?" the situation we are dealing with now is that he is advocating that we as a government should get into the insurance business. Before we do that and obligate the people of Ontario to a potential cost of $170 million or more, if we use these figures, we are going to look into it.

We have a group looking at that to make a recommendation to us. If it makes sense, we will certainly look at it, but we are not going to buy the member's pig in a poke just because he thinks it is a great idea.

Mr. Foulds: Who is the group? Is the group from the Winnipeg Free Press?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) have a supplementary?

Mr. Swart: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the member for Port Arthur had one. The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: It is nice that the minister cannot deny the accuracy of those figures of $54 million in profit over the term of its operation and $321 million in reserve.

Apart from the substantially lower rates of profitability of the Ontario plan compared to the Manitoba plan, does not the Manitoba plan commend its application to Ontario for its investment potential in worthy projects? Is the minister aware that of the $321-million reserve, $23 million has been invested in 35 capital projects for schools, $30 million in 75 municipal projects, $49 million in 100 hospital and health projects and $172 million in provincial projects such as hydro?

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not think it would be beneficial to have that $3.21 billion to invest in those kinds of worthy projects here? Does he not think that would be better than the public not having a single dollar to show for its massive premiums in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold said I did not dispute the figures; as a matter of fact, I do. The reserves in Manitoba at present are $60 million. The member is advocating a system today in which he is saying we should get into the business. In Manitoba right now, the plan is turning into a very expensive drain on the people. Before we as a government subject the people of Ontario to that kind of financial drain, we are going to examine it.

PEEL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will the minister explain to the members of the House why, after assuring me on December 17 that he was willing to meet with the lawyers representing the Charlestown Residential School in Caledon, the chairman of the board and the former principal of the school, along with representatives of the Peel Children's Services, he has now changed his mind and has no interest in doing so?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of our discussion is a little different, but I am quite prepared to review that again with the honourable member.

First, I indicated, not only to him but also to the parents themselves, that I would see to it that they had an opportunity on an individual basis to meet with representatives of Peel Children's Services and representatives from my area office to discuss the effectiveness of the programming for their individual children.

The second agreement, as I recall it, was that the ongoing legal situation between Charlestown and Peel with respect to the lease or purchase of the property was just that, a legal situation, and that I would ensure that our legal authorities would clearly define to Charlestown what the situation was.

My recollection is that since the Dunsters are no longer associated with this program in any way, there is no valid reason for me to meet with them. I cannot recall making that commitment. I will discuss it further with my honourable friend.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: In our conversation, I suggested he meet with the chainman of the board and the lawyer representing the board, not just Mr. Dunster. There is a legal clarification necessary, but there is also a problem relating to the residence of children in that facility.

I feel the minister is negligent if he refuses to meet with them to try to clarify this very urgent situation.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am quite prepared to check once again with legal counsel in my ministry to find out exactly the current status of the negotiations. If it appears there is a complete breakdown in that, I will review the best way to proceed.

In recent discussions with the parents, I indicated that I was less concerned -- not unconcerned -- with the legal ramifications of the property than I was with the programming needs of the children, and that my first efforts and energy would be directed to making sure the programming needs of their children were met.

Quite frankly, the legal considerations are a secondary concern to me. I am sure my honourable friend would agree that is the priority they should have.

ARGOSY FINANCIAL GROUP OF CANADA

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning his abominable response to the Ombudsman's report on Argosy, a matter the Ombudsman has called "one of the largest frauds in Ontario history."

The Ombudsman's report clearly demonstrates that the regulatory actions of the government were wrong and unreasonable and that a majority of the people who lost their money were over 60 years of age, many of them were forced to come out of retirement and start working again at that age and many of them were forced to move in with their children as a result of the financial hardship of losing their life savings. Why has the minister decided to turn his back on these people and refused to accept the report of the Ombudsman of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I agree with the member that the fraud was one of the most abominable in the history of the province. Where we

part company and where I do not agree is that there was regulatory failure.

The Ombudsman in his report could not pinpoint the specific regulatory failure. As a matter of fact, he arbitrarily found only 50 per cent regulatory failure -- whatever that means -- and then went on to state that it had been over a period of years. As a result of outside legal consultation, we cannot find any regulatory failure. If we were in any way to contribute government funds to resolve this problem, we would set a very dangerous precedent.

We would be in a position whereby we would set a standard of expectation that anybody who invested anything in Ontario and it went bad would have recourse to the government. As a minister responsible to the people of Ontario, I have an obligation to make sure that the funds which are raised from the people of Ontario are used expeditiously and with great care. As a result of that, I have rejected the Ombudsman's claim.

Mr. Philip: I have a question arising from the minister's obvious intent that somehow it is the investors' fault for investing and let the buyer beware. Does the minister not understand that the Ombudsman has tabled documents and has clearly documented in his report that the registrar of mortgage brokers failed abominably, that he knew the principals were people who should not be in the business and yet he did nothing to get them out of the business, that he did not communicate that to the Ontario Securities Commission and that had the Ontario Securities Commission been aware of the information in the other branch of the ministry, this would not have gone on?

Is the minister taking a position which is clearly outlined in the Liberal research paper which says, "One very sad aspect of the Argosy fiasco is the amount of misunderstanding that exists among the media and the general public." It goes on to say, "It is really shameful that the Tories should be so manipulative and so dishonest in spreading that kind of information to the public about the investors." How does the government's position differ from the position taken by the Tories, whom the Liberal Party so greatly condemned in this research paper turned out in 1971 by its research department?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure all members of the House will appreciate I am in a rather unique situation in that I have the opportunity to take a look at this situation and say: "A pox on your house. The former government is at fault and we are going to find that it was at fault." That would be the easiest and the most politically expedient thing to do.

Notwithstanding that, I have had to look at the situation. I have had to get independent advice. I have had to look at it objectively in the best interests of the broad majority of the people of Ontario. As a result of that investigation, I and my colleagues have determined that we are not prepared to compensate those people.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Solicitor General. When is the Solicitor General going to take some action on police chases in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We answered that in our estimates last week, but for the purpose of the House I will mention that tomorrow I will be reviewing a final cabinet submission on the issue of police pursuits which will then proceed through the cabinet committee on justice. I hope it will be out very shortly. It has been redrafted a number of times and is at the stage that I will be receiving it tomorrow.

Mr. Sterling: Study, study, study; that is what we have heard for some time. There are approximately 150 police forces in Ontario and we have 150 different policies on police chases in Ontario. Two years ago, a special committee presented the minister with a report on police pursuits. Since the minister has been Solicitor General for a year and a half, he has done nothing to date. Why does the minister not at least implement one or two of the 31 recommendations in this report and do it now? Quit studying; let us get on with it.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I have implemented some of those recommendations in a quiet way. In a process of determining what is the most effective type of policy with police pursuits, we have done a fair amount. We have had very wide consultation with the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the municipal policing authorities and members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to come up with a comprehensive set of guidelines which are acceptable to the public and will be effective.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following the report released last week by the day care coalition concerning the quality of day care in Canada and the survey by day care inspectors which indicated that fully 25 per cent of those private profit-operated day cares were either poor or very poor in terms of the quality of program provided, how can the minister justify the proposal to provide public funding in a direct grant to private profit-operated day care centres in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I had an opportunity to meet with the day care coalition on Tuesday morning before that report was publicly released. At that time, they indicated to me that they were going to say that 38 per cent of the growth in the system in the past year was in the commercial area. I told them their figures were wrong, but they released it anyway. The actual figure for growth in the past year was seven per cent in the nonprofit area and four per cent in the commercial area.

Ms. Gigantes: That is irrelevant. It is not what I asked you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is the reality. Those are the real figures.

The second point of the member's question was with respect to the percentage. What they neglected to point out was that in that report it clearly says that while there are more problems in the commercial sector, the main reason is that they get fewer resources and the response is not to abandon them but to improve the resources available to them. That was not made public.

PETITION

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. McFadden: I have a petition here, signed by 49 residents of Ontario, addressed to the Legislature and to the government as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the imposition of market value assessment on Metro Toronto by the provincial government. The higher property taxes for many north Toronto home owners, as a result of market value assessment, would impose a tremendous financial hardship for many individuals, particularly those on fixed incomes, single-parent families, seniors and low-income workers.

"The people of Ontario are already paying too much in taxes. The increases in property taxes under market value assessment, caused by escalating land prices in Metro Toronto, would not result in a corresponding increase in municipal services. The imposition of market value assessment on Metro Toronto by the provincial government will not only cause financial hardship for many people, but will also have a destabilizing effect on neighbourhoods and families in north Toronto. We urge the provincial government not to impose market value assessment on Metro Toronto home owners."

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 1983, be transferred from the select committee on health to the standing committee on social development.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984 and certain other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 1904, community housing program; item 1, program administration:

Mr. McClellan: I have some concerns to raise with the minister on this vote and item. I will wait until his officials have ensconced themselves, if they are going to ensconce. I am sure the minister feels more confident now; I certainly feel more confident now.

I have a matter that is causing me a great deal of concern. It has to do with the proposed rent increase for a nonprofit senior citizens' apartment building at 707 St. Clair Avenue West, St. Matthew's Bracondale House. The minister will be aware, because we have raised it since he became minister, that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. sets rents on the basis of what it calls low-end-of-market surveys for the nonprofit programs under subsection 56(1). The so-called low-end-of-market surveys are not conducted in the neighbourhood of the apartment building; they are conducted wherever the whims of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. seem to take them.

In this case, the low-end-of-market survey was not conducted in centre west-end Toronto, which is a reasonably low-rent area, and it was not conducted among older buildings or rent-controlled buildings; it was conducted among decontrolled buildings in the following areas. This is supposed to be a neighbourhood survey. The neighbourhood I am talking about is St. Clair and Christie in the city of Toronto.

The buildings surveyed were 2350 Dundas Street West and 2360 Dundas Street West -- I have no idea how far west that is; I am sure it is on the other side of Islington Avenue -- 1750 Lawrence Avenue West, 15 Martha Eaton Way and 250 St. George Street. These are new commercial buildings, far away from centre west-end Toronto; so it is no big surprise that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. discovered that according to the low-end-of-market survey, the rents at St. Matthew's Bracondale House should go up.

They are proposing to bring the rents from their present levels to what they call the low-end-of-market level by 1988.

We are finally getting to the nub of my concern. Rents are proposed to rise as follows: from a current rent for a bachelor apartment of $325 a month to a proposed rent of $390 a month; from $389 to $525 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, an increase of $136; from $441 to $645 a month for a two-bedroom apartment; and from $562 to $735 a month for a three-bedroom apartment.

I have a series of questions I would like to pursue with the minister. First, how are people on fixed incomes, who went into this building in 1981 on the understanding that the rent

schedule was something they could afford on fixed incomes, supposed to pay increases of 20 to 25 per cent based on current market conditions? Where are they supposed to get the extra money to pay for these massive increases in a supposedly nonprofit program? Can the minister explain why his officials have gone along with this to the extent that they refuse to increase the number of subsidy spaces at Bracondale House until it agrees to accept this new rent schedule? Can he explain why this is happening?

Hon. Mr. Curling: When the honourable member from the third party raises a question, it is always well thought out and of great concern to his constituents. I do not know whether this specific one is in his constituency, but when the member rises it is usually with a well thought out question.

This is a problem about which we are very concerned. I should tell the member at the outset that it is a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. project, and he has said it is a CMHC project. We do not play a role in rent-setting there. He mentioned the low-end-of-market type of assessment and he mentioned it does not help people very much who have these drastic increases. He used one example of an increase from $389 to maybe $525. That is quite an increase for anyone on a fixed income.

CMHC speaks to my staff constantly and I am in consultation with it, but it also realizes this is a very complex problem for it to solve. It is not complex in a way that it moves a $150 or so increase and the individual does not have the money. CMHC wants to resolve the problem these people are faced with in terms of how they should go about it. We are trying to assist CHMC. We hope it will resolve the problem as early as possible and therefore not deplete that kind of fixed income, most of it going into rent.

I do not have any specific solutions to offer my friend as to how this will be resolved. I have stated already that this is a CMHC problem and that I am quite concerned that these people are faced with an exorbitant increase in rent. That is the most I can offer my friend on this matter.

Mr. McClellan: I cannot accept that as a response. I accept the minister's statement of concern, but we are going to have to pursue this a little because he obviously does not understand the involvement of his own ministry in this matter.

I state again that his ministry has refused to increase the number of subsidy spaces at Bracondale House until it adopts the CHMC low-end-of-market rent scale that I outlined to him and which he indicated was unacceptable. Specifically, under the existing formula Bracondale House would be entitled to 64 subsidy spaces in the project. It has only 55 spaces now and it has asked for additional spaces from the ministry. The ministry has refused to give these, as I understand it, until it adopts the new rent schedule, so the minister is involved in this.

So that the minister understands what a terrible situation we have, Bracondale House did a survey of the tenants' incomes in October 1986 and discovered there are a number of tenants who should be getting subsidies already who do not get subsidies; they are paying full rent.

Two tenants whose incomes are below $8,000 a year are paying full rent without subsidy. Three tenants whose incomes are below $9,000 a year, who should be getting subsidies, are paying full rent. There is one tenant whose income is below $10,000. Six tenants whose incomes are below $11,000 are paying full rent with no subsidy. Eight tenants whose incomes are below $12,000 are paying full rent with no subsidies. There are seven tenants below $13,000, five tenants below $14,000 and three tenants below $15,000. Clearly, there are a number of tenants in that building who already should be subsidized but who are paying full rent because of a shortage of subsidy spaces.

The ministry and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. are now proposing to raise the rent

schedule to what I can only say is a thoroughly bogus low-end-of-market scale. Apparently, the ministry has been unwilling or unable to recognize the extent of the problem, even to the extent of providing additional subsidy spaces.

There are going to be some real hardships in this building and in other buildings if this is the practice across Metropolitan Toronto. A number of seniors are going to be in a terrible situation. The rents are going up on the basis of market value, and the ministry is not providing sufficient subsidy spaces so that each and every person who would be eligible for a subsidy would be able to get one.

There is another piece of information I want to share with the minister, and then I will have made my presentation to him. The irony of this whole thing is that when CMHC raises the rents to a new market level, I ask members to guess who benefits. None of this money goes to the federal government, as I understand it. All of this money comes back to the government of Ontario and to the Minister of Housing because, under the terms of the agreement, surplus funds at the end of the year are returned to the Ontario community housing assistance program. Right?

Here are the figures. In the first year, the OCHAP subsidy will increase because the rents are going up. During the first year of the proposed rent increase, OCHAP subsidies will increase from $120,000 to $147,000 a year. At the end of the year, there will be a surplus of $80,000 in the account of St. Matthew's Bracondale House. That money will be returned to OCHAP, to the Ontario government and to the Minister of Housing. The profit of the first year of the rent increase will go back to the Minister of Housing.

For the second year the OCHAP subsidy will increase to $183,000. The surplus at the end of the year from the higher rents will increase to $133,000. This too will go into the minister's pocket on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

In year three, the OCHAP subsidy increases to $220,000. Because of the increased rents, the surplus in the third year increases to $200,000. The net effect over the course of the three years is to reduce the government of Ontario's cost to something in the order of $20,000, which is the difference between $220,000 and $200,000, as compared with the difference now of $120,000 to $80,000. This is really crazy.

I ask the minister, first, to sit down with his assistant deputy minister, Mr. Pitura, and with Mr. Cornell and review commitments that were made during the estimates of the Ministry of Housing to try to do something about these CMHC low-end-of-market surveys, which are imposing a highly inflationary rental housing market on pensioners on fixed incomes in nonprofit apartment buildings.

It is a crazy, crazy situation. The minister cannot allow the spiral that has taken place in uncontrolled commercial rental accommodation to be the basis for setting rents for people on fixed incomes. He cannot do it; it is lunacy.

He is causing an incredible amount of anxiety and real financial harm to senior citizens who believed that when they entered a senior citizens' building under the auspices of our federal and provincial programs, they had an assurance that for the rest of their lives the rent problem at least would be solved, they would be saved from the terrible spiral that drove them out of the commercial rental market in the first place and they would never be subjected again to these kinds of financial insecurities.

Yet, lo and behold, agencies of the government, with bureaucracies that appear to be completely insensitive, are imposing market values on people with fixed incomes. People who have been in these buildings since 1981 have not had any big increases. Maybe the minister can remember a 25 per cent increase in the old age pension; I cannot remember that. I do not remember a big increase in Canada pension benefits, because it did not take place. People do not have the money to pay for these kinds of increases. The minister does not have enough subsidy spaces to cushion everybody from these kinds of increases.

He does not have enough subsidy spaces now to cover all the people who are eligible for subsidy. The October survey proved that.

There are more people who are now eligible for subsidy than get subsidy. The ministry is already short about 10 spaces, and when these rent increases go through, virtually everybody in the building will be entitled to the subsidy. Does the minister not think it would be a lot more sensible to roll the increase back, accept what St. Matthew's has suggested, which is an inflation increase of six per cent, which is matched by what people can expect to get in their pension income, and roll this thing back before it causes the minister, and more especially the people who live in St. Matthew's, a great deal of harm?

I would like the minister, first, to stand and indicate how he can sit down with CMHC to roll back these increases; and second, to address himself to the number of subsidy spaces.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will state, first, that I will not instruct CMHC to roll back the increase. Let me make that very clear at this time.

Like anything else, some policy changes have repercussions. The increases the tenants are experiencing -- yes, I have thought of this -- have, as the member has so eloquently stated, brought some hardship on those tenants. As he knows, under the Ontario community housing assistance program, as I understand it, only 50 per cent of those units can be supplemented. The member has also spoken in detail about some tenants who, after being assessed, found they needed supplements or subsidies, who found themselves in hardship and required some subsidy to keep them from paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rent.

That is the problem CMHC and we find ourselves in with regard to the tenants in those apartments.

The member also mentioned -- and I will come back and address the three points -- that the surplus that is found there goes back to OCHAP. I understand that any surplus in any program does not go back to a program specifically but goes back to the main coffers. Maybe that is why my honourable friend left, because I would then turn around to ask him for that surplus.

The point the member makes is that, after putting the program into place and realizing there is a surplus and there is a hardship on the tenants who are being tested in paying their rent increases, there is no program designed to assist them. I have said that the maximum number of units that can be rent-supplemented under OCHAP is 50 per cent.

The member asked what I was going to do about that specific case. I think we can sit down as our part of the government with CHMC to work out a way to supplement the rents of those who have been identified as requiring assistance because of those increases. I do not know the process in detail, but we can use some of the money we now have to assist those tenants. I want the member to understand that it is also a CMHC problem because it is its program. I am sure that can be worked out. The staff will be working on it. Even today I gather they were speaking to CMHC on this project.

I am sure we can resolve the problem in that way and make sure the bureaucracy does not get in the way while people are suffering.

Mr. McClellan: I appreciate what the minister has said. I take it the minister is indicating that it may be possible to find more than the maximum number of subsidized units if the need indicates. I wonder whether the minister could be clear. I would like to have an assurance from the minister -- and I do not think it is unfair or unrealistic to ask for this -- that anybody who lives in this building who is eligible for subsidization will be able to obtain subsidization because of what is happening here; and that the minister will take whatever action is necessary to get those extra subsidy spaces into this building.

I agree with him that the main problem is the approach of CMHC, which is the most difficult and insufferable bureaucracy I have ever encountered in my life. I do not understand how the federal government can allow a bureaucracy to be such a law unto itself with no accountability. There is not a minister whom one can point to who has the kind of accountability and responsibility for this agency that we take for granted with respect to our public service and our ministries here. There is nothing like it in the Ontario public service. It is an insult to the people of this country that CMHC is able to trample on people the way it does with no accountabilities and no consequences.

I appreciate that the minister is just one more person who has enormous difficulty dealing with this particular federal bureaucracy, but I plead again with the ministry to try to negotiate with these characters to get them to stop using the current market inflation and the inflationary spiral in commercial rents as the basis for setting rent in our nonprofit housing program because it is going to destroy the program if rents are tied to the kind of crazy inflationary spiral that exists in communities such as Metropolitan Toronto and some of the other large cities in this province. It will destroy the program.

The minister cannot come up with enough subsidy money if the program is tied to a rent-setting policy based on this kind of inflation.

To get back to my main point, which is the minister's responsibility, can I have an assurance that all those who are eligible for subsidy will have the opportunity to apply for and receive subsidies?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can give the honourable member my assurance about the policy aspect of it, to look at the policy and to make sure it does not deprive anyone of those supplements, but I cannot give him my assurance that they will receive the increased supplements for their rent. This is something I am trying to work out with CMHC. Again, the member has identified a rather complex bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that one has to understand, and I am trying to understand it.

I would like to stand here and give the member my assurance that his people will receive the increased amount of money for their rent, but I cannot do that. I gather from the staff that they met with CMHC as recently as today in working on this complex problem and the hardship these people face. We will have to look at the criteria once again, going back to the policy, and see that we come to a reasonable solution so that we will not have to face this in our estimates or in the future.

Mr. McClellan: I have one more final comment. The person whose total income is $7,611.63 this past year is now paying $389 a month rent with no subsidy and CMHC is proposing to jack that up to $525 over the course of these staged increases. I can go through the list I have here and I can go through the incomes. Here is somebody with a total income of $8,891.95 now paying $389 a month. CMHC is going to be asking for $525 from this person.

I just say to the minister that this train is coming towards his desk. If he thinks somebody with that kind of an income can pay $6,000 a year in rent -- which leaves a grand total of $2,000 for all other necessary expenses -- and there will not be a community outcry about this, then the minister lives in a different community to the one I do. I think the minister realizes how offensive, how insulting, how outrageous what CMHC is doing really is, notwithstanding that CMHC is probably such a law unto itself that it will simply proceed to do this.

As I said, the train is heading for the minister's desk and the people whose incomes are going to be decimated to pay the rent are going to be coming to him for assistance.

I appreciate the commitment the minister has given. He is obviously being very cautious. I will be knocking on the door of Mr. Pitura, who is listening attentively, and other officials of the ministry because I think we need to work this out and we need to work it out very quickly before anybody really suffers the kind of damage that is inevitable unless some emergency action is taken.

Mr. Villeneuve: I will express a few concerns regarding community housing and vote 1904 of the ministry. They have to do with some of the great things the minister has told us have happened in the past 18 months.

One of the not-so-great things is that with the changes that have occurred, particularly in municipal nonprofit senior citizens' housing in the past 18 months, it is almost guaranteed that small, rural Ontario municipalities and towns will no longer be eligible for municipal nonprofit housing through the ministry.

Senior citizens living in these small towns find the burden of home ownership somewhat heavy after a certain time, particularly when one of the spouses has passed away. The fact that the ministry has decreed that a 40 per cent needs criterion must be met to satisfy the construction of municipal nonprofit accommodation for senior citizens has almost guaranteed that very few of our small towns qualify. I will cite a few examples.

Senior citizens, be they couples or single individuals, may have modest investment incomes and also would probably have residences in the value range of $25,000 to $40,000. The liquidation of these residences would disqualify them immediately, because the interest income earned on those investments would effectively say they no longer meet the core needs criteria as set out by the ministry.

The village of Avonmore in the municipality in which I live currently has under construction a municipal nonprofit senior citizens' home. The only reason it is currently under construction is that it qualified under the former government's criteria. The changes this government has initiated would have disqualified this community.

It is similar in the village of Lancaster. Under the previous administration, it was granted funds to set up its municipal nonprofit housing corporation; which was done, all criteria were met. The rules of the game were changed, and we now have no allocation for the village of Lancaster. These people met every criteria at the time. They now have a corporation, which obtained funding from the previous government, that has no senior citizens' residence being constructed and no allocation.

In the village of Crysler, we have the same situation; likewise, in the village of Chesterville. These are all situations in small, rural Ontario towns. Unless the minister addresses the needs criteria, he has effectively told these people that they do not and will not qualify.

First, does the minister intend to make any changes in his core needs criteria to accommodate to some degree these senior citizens, who have never asked anyone to hand out any money? Basically, they have done it on their own by living carefully and frugally. They now find that owning a home is difficult if not almost impossible. They do not qualify. We do not have any senior citizens' accommodations to which they can move. Effectively, they are stuck in having either to move to a community that is foreign to them or to make drastic changes in their lives. I do not think it is fair, and I await the minister's reply.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to respond to my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As I said, all these tidings sound like law firms.

I understand what the member is saying. When the 40 per cent guideline was put in place, it was done so we could target the neediest in those areas. The member made another point, that in some of the areas it may be extremely difficult to find 40 per cent of the project to make up the core need.

I want to go back to the member's question about what we are doing about seniors. In our last total allocation we had 1,515 seniors approved. That is quite an achievement in such a short time. Again, I am not patting myself on the back. It is a dramatic increase in addressing the needs of seniors across Ontario. In the eastern area alone, 125 units in projects for seniors were addressed through the core need; 79 were in the rental market category.

Our program has looked at those who are in the most need. We would like to have a tremendous number of allocations and units to take in others who are not as greatly deprived as those whom we are now addressing. We are looking at other areas, such as the member's, which may not be able to fill those projects with 40 per cent. There are areas that cannot meet that percentage. They still make a presentation to us and the staff will look at it. For my approval I take those things into consideration.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where are these 1,500 senior citizens' units that the minister approved during 1986? Are they primarily in the city and urban areas? I would like to know the breakdown. How many of those were allocated to small rural Ontario towns?

The minister should remember that at present, most of these people live in their own modest homes. Some of them are living in apartments. If municipal nonprofit seniors' housing goes to their town, they will probably liquidate their residence to a young couple who would be looking at that home as a startup home. If it is an apartment, someone would be renting that apartment.

Effectively, some housing accommodation is being created. You would also be helping these small towns, which have a tendency to lose population instead of increasing it at present. Not only would you be stimulating construction on a short-term basis, but you would also be bringing some young blood to some of these communities. I feel that is very important.

I would also like to remind the minister and emphasize that in these small communities, these senior citizens have no place to go when the burden of home ownership is beyond what they feel they can handle comfortably. They have to move to urban areas. It is a sad situation, when they have earned their living and lived in these small towns, that they are forced to pull up roots and go to an area they are unfamiliar with. They probably create a problem in the urban area when they could have continued to live in the milieu which was theirs all their life. Could the minister please address that?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I remind the honourable member that he asked whether I could name all these areas. The point he made that seniors would like to stay in their own communities has been expressed right across Ontario. After living for 30, 40, 50 or 60 years in a community, no one wants to move out and live somewhere that is unfamiliar, where the person would have to be reoriented all over again. The program addresses that need.

Most of the programs for seniors are in small communities. The member asked me to name all the small communities in which senior citizen projects have been allocated. I will not go through them in detail. That would take us the rest of the estimates time, and there are a lot of pertinent questions other people would like to ask in that respect.

I will tell the member where some of the projects are in the eastern area. In Cornwall, we have a project of 40 units; in Gloucester, the eastern Ontario nonprofit group has another project of 50 units; in Kingston, there is another project of 50 units, as a matter of fact 25 market and 25 core; in Ottawa, there is a project of 64 units; and in Trenton there is another project of 50 units. They are located in areas -- I do not know whether the member wants the specific towns -- that show a need by seniors.

It is an agreement between the federal government -- Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. -- and ourselves that we target and have 40 per cent for those in need, so while we are trying to meet the guidelines and criteria of CMHC, we are also sensitive to the points the member made about the times communities cannot find the 40 per cent for those in need.

A member of the third party stated that sometimes it had been difficult to work out policies with other parties. He stated that CMHC has criteria, that we have criteria and that we work out an agreement. We agree with CMHC that we must target mostly those in need. Again, back to the point that there are areas which cannot reach that percentage, we are prepared to look specifically at those cases.

Mr. Villeneuve: With regard to the towns the minister mentioned, Cornwall has a population of 46,000 or 47,000, greater Kingston has a population of well over 100,000 and Gloucester is a suburb of Ottawa. The minister is talking about urban Ontario, as I see it. I express the deep concerns of small-town Ontario. In the area I represent, my metropolis is a town called Alexandria, which has slightly more than 3,000 people. We are getting into small-town Ontario. It is most important that these senior citizens not be classed as second-class citizens because they happen to live in some of these very much smaller communities.

Again, I go back to the Lancaster situation. The minister's staff has been most helpful. We met with representatives of the municipal non-profit seniors' organization in Lancaster a week ago. We had two of the minister's staff members down from Ottawa, two very capable people, but they were handcuffed by this 40 per cent criterion. These people were allocated amounts of money to do the study, the analysis, to establish the need; that money was spent. The needs were established under the old criteria. We now have a situation where under the new criteria this has to be pretty well done over again.

Their funds have run out, a most embarrassing situation, because the rules of the game were changed in midstream.

Will these communities have special consideration in the ministry's allocations for 1987?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I named a few small towns, and as I said, I could spend all afternoon naming small towns. It is so unfair that the member stated the towns I named were not small enough.

The point I should make -- and I would like to make it emphatically -- is that none of these programs would have existed if the province had not partaken in them. No program in Fort Boyle, which has 20 units, would have existed. Tillsonburg has 40 units; Tobermory, 14 and 50, a total of 64.

We look after all of Ontario. I am the Minister of Housing for all of Ontario. I could go on all day about the small towns -- I would rather call them intimate towns -- and how we address their needs. Again, we are tied into an agreement with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and the idea is to target those most in need.

To address the other part of this, we did not change policy in midstream. The criteria were there before, as I understand it. It is quite possible that groups started to plan their projects years ago with different criteria. Then when the criteria were changed one or two years ago, they would have had to change their emphasis as to who would be accommodated in these projects. I would not say it was changed in midstream.

The last point I would like to make is that there are other projects that address the needs of seniors, not only municipal nonprofit ones. There are other projects. When I name all this and the member says there are only 50 here or only 20 here, those are the municipal nonprofit ones; there are other projects for seniors in some of those areas.

Mr. Villeneuve: Not many years ago, under a previous administration, the community of Williamsburg had a 32-unit senior citizens' apartment building. That community certainly has fewer than 500 people. A municipal nonprofit seniors' residence has just been completed in the community of Winchester; the community of Winchester has about 2,000 people and there are 45 units there. The community of Finch, which has about 500 people, completed a senior citizens' project in 1986. The community of Avonmore, which has somewhere between 300 and 400 people, is in the process of completing a municipal nonprofit seniors' residence. I remind the minister that this was under a previous administration.

The town of Lancaster did indeed get caught with a change of rules and regulations in midstream. The town of Crysler was caught in the same situation, as was the town of Chesterville. These three small communities in my riding were caught in a situation where they qualified the previous month and the rules were changed. That is all I can tell the minister. That is what I have been told by people in his ministry. I was quite close to the scene in all this. It did make them ineligible and that is of grave concern to me.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of course the rules were changed, but the member should remember who changed the rules. Our federal counterpart changed the rules and we are going along with it. It is not that just we changed the rules. As I said, we agree that we must target those most in need.

I must remind the member that he asked me a direct question about municipal nonprofit and then started to speak about how many units were done by the previous government. I could stand here and defend our record, with the tremendous number of projects we have put on stream since we have been here, but I know the member's question came from concern and not from competition. I have stood in the House many times and spoken about the number of units approved so far. We continue to approve them. We continue to look at those needs.

I had hoped I could address all the needs so that today the member could stand in the committee and say not only that 95 per cent of the program is good and that he is concerned about five per cent but also that 100 per cent of our housing initiatives are good.

Mr. Villeneuve: I will not belabour the point, but there is a minister within the government who is in charge of senior citizens' affairs. I have expressed my concerns to him and to Ivy St. Lawrence, chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. I believe they, in concert with the ministry, are attempting to rectify some of the inequities.

We must remember that the vast majority of our senior citizens has never asked for any handouts. They are not asking for handouts now. They are simply asking that the burden of home ownership, which they find rather heavy after they get to a certain age, the looking after the grass, the snow, the maintenance -- they would like to be able to stay in the community where they have lived the majority of their lives and have a residence. It would not matter if it were privately owned, so be it, but they want to have a place where the burden of ownership and all the things that go with it can be lifted from their shoulders.

Also, the minister should remember we have Meals on Wheels in these communities, which asks volunteers to cover many miles at lunchtime to try to deliver these meals. If we were able to put these senior citizens in residences -- municipal, nonprofit seniors' residences -- Meals on Wheels could very effectively deliver those meals on a daily basis to 28, 30 or 32 units, which would make everything so much easier. We could probably keep our senior citizens in their own place of residence a lot longer as opposed to having them in nursing homes where it would be ve