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

February 11, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L102 - Wed 11 Feb 1987 / Mer 11 fév 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

NATIVE-LANGUAGE TELEVISION SERVICE

TAX REVENUES

NURSING HOME BEDS

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

ANIMAL RIGHTS

GASOLINE PRICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB TRAINING

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

RESPONSES

JOB TRAINING

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

JOB TRAINING

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

INSURANCE RATES

COAL TAR

IDEA CORP.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

AMATEUR ATHLETES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

HOSPICE FUNDING

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

WYDA SYSTEMS (CANADA) INC.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

VISITORS

PETITIONS

NURSING HOME

TRANSIT SERVICES

SHORELINE PROTECTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

WILLIAMS CREEK GOLD QUARTZ MINING CO. LIMITED ACT

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Guindon: More and more it appears to me that there are two classes of citizens in Ontario. Do not be mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I am not referring to rich and poor; I am referring to a sort of discrimination based on place of residence. If you are fortunate enough to live in Toronto or Hamilton, you have nothing to complain about. You have jobs, roads, services, recreation and many other advantages which are not common in rural Ontario -- especially in eastern Ontario and, more particularly, in my riding of Cornwall.

The problem I am referring to had been brought to my attention even before this government came to power. Residents of Cornwall township have been and are still complaining to me about the lack of safe drinking water. I always thought drinking water was a basic commodity which every citizen should be able to enjoy. After all, St. Andrews West is located in Ontario, not in Africa, and as far as I know, Ontario is not part of the Third World.

When the health of my constituents is at risk, when the progress of their community is restricted by a lack of safe drinking water, I feel I have to intervene. I have to request that this situation be taken care of with a high degree of urgency.

When will the government see fit to work out solutions to problems plaguing eastern Ontario? Are we so far away that we do not count? Sure, we count when it comes to taxing. When can we look forward to a solution to this problem? When can the people of Cornwall and Cornwall township start feeling that they too are part of Ontario? I want solutions now, because they are needed now.

NATIVE-LANGUAGE TELEVISION SERVICE

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to draw to the attention of all members a historic and unique arrangement that has taken place between Wawatay and TVOntario. Starting on January 18, native-language television programs produced by Wawatay are being distributed, using the facilities of TVOntario, to reach 27 native communities in northwestern Ontario.

This co-operation between Wawatay and TVOntario, using satellite technology, will help to nourish and sustain the language and culture of our native Canadians. It is an outstanding example of community effort, of people pooling their talents and resources for the betterment of their community.

Having been honoured, with other distinguished members from all over Ontario, with an invitation to attend the official opening of the Wawatay television facility and subsequent feast on January 29, I was able to witness the enormous sense of pride that the people of Nishnawbe-Aski feel about this historic undertaking. They are also justifiably proud of what has been accomplished between TVOntario and the people of Wawatay.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Callahan: Over the last little while, the official opposition -- the Conservatives -- and the third party have accused the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of storing up nuts for the winter. I suggest to members that this $900 million that he is constantly accused of is not even sufficient to cover the ills of the past that have been neglected.

I refer members to the fact that, on the current data I have, $60 million are to be spent over the next two years improving deteriorating roads; $209 million to upgrade existing facilities in cancer care and research; $13 million to establish northern medical travel; $103 million in provincial loans and grants to stimulate auto investment; $100 million over a five-year plan for northern development; a 300 per cent increase to $2 million per year to support municipal recycling programs; an initial 200 per cent increase to $11 million per year, in January 1986, subsequently raised to $36 million, with reference to community and home care for seniors.

There are many more I could relate, but in closing, I would like to refer to the $850 million the Treasurer has allocated for capital construction of hospitals over the next five years. That, to me and the citizens of Brampton, is probably one of the most significant of all of those expenditures.

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. McLean: This statement refers to the Ministry of Health, with particular reference to the riding of Simcoe East, which includes Orillia and the Midland area.

Over the past few years, there have been few approvals for additional nursing beds. The district health council completed a study of the area and concluded that, with the population expanding as it has, nursing home bed capacity is not keeping up with that expansion, particularly in this area.

I think the minister should be giving serious consideration to expanding nursing home bed approvals. We have approximately 115 in need at this time in Orillia alone, and 35 of our hospital beds are being taken up by patients who could and should be in nursing homes. It is a similar situation in the Midland area, where many people are taking up hospital beds who should be in nursing home facilities.

It seems that if the minister's colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) can arrange for additional housing units for what he has termed the hard-to-house, then the minister could arrange 100 or so nursing home beds for the riding of Simcoe East. The need is at least as great and the cost would be less. Perhaps the seniors should even have some priority in this matter.

Will the minister approve additional nursing home beds for the riding of Simcoe East and thereby cut his health care costs substantially by freeing up those hospital beds? With the allotments that have been made elsewhere in the province, will he now include some for Simcoe East, where the need is great?

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) drew to the attention of the Legislature the situation in Niagara region, where the police chief has been suspended for alleged corrupt practices in giving preferential treatment to two applicants for police jobs who were related to senior officers. While I commend the new chairman of the Niagara Regional Police Commission, Denise Taylor, for her prompt action in ordering a suspension until the allegations are investigated, I am shocked that nepotism still appears to be continuing in the Niagara police force.

In view of the fact that an investigative journalist revealed last year that 27 per cent of all members of the police force were related, I want to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) what he has done since that newspaper story came out to draw to the attention of the Niagara police chief and all other police chiefs in Ontario that such hiring practices are corrupt and will not be tolerated. Has he issued any written guidelines on this matter? If so, will he table them in this House tomorrow? When will he bring in his long-promised revision of the Police Act to spell out a code of conduct for the police forces of Ontario?

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last you inadvertently cut me off by 14 seconds, so I wish to repeat.

I believe it is time members spoke out on the subject of animal rights. I want to make it clear, whether one is an animal lover or not, that the mistreatment of animals is something any sensitive individual cannot tolerate. One has to wonder, however, about the value system of animal activists who place their obsession with humanity towards animals above the wellbeing of human beings.

These animal worshippers, if they had their way, would wreak genocide on northern peoples, whose very existence depends on animals to provide them with food, shelter and a way of life. In the land of the midnight sun, the climate eliminates vegetation on which man can live, but not vegetation on which animals can feed. The six-month period with little or no sun deprives mankind of the ability to synthesize the sunshine vitamin. These people would die of scurvy were it not for the vitamins stored in fish and animal fats and oils.

These people reject the scientific theory that man evolved on the planet as a meat-eater. The theory is that man ate raw meat before fire was discovered and mastered,

whereas he found it impossible to eat raw grain. Raw grain creates a raging brewery of the human digestive system. Further proof is that there are few, if any, cases of man being allergic to meat, while cases of allergic reactions and even fatal reactions to plant foods are fairly common --

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

Mr. McGuigan: You got me again.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gordon: l would like to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) how much longer people living in Sudbury and northeastern Ontario are going to have to pay those high gasoline prices. He knows it is a disincentive to secondary industry; he knows people in the north face higher costs than people living in southern Ontario. As a matter of fact, a recent survey showed that people in northern Ontario are being paid less in comparison to those who live in the south. He is taxing people who can little afford to pay the money they are charged for gasoline at present. When is he going to keep his promise?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB TRAINING

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased to report to the House on the results of our review of the Ontario training trust fund program and the Ontario help centres program. Both initiatives were established in the spring of 1985 with a requirement for a review prior to the end of this fiscal year.

The Ontario training trust fund program was introduced to encourage greater co-operation between employers and employees in undertaking job-related training.

Les fonds de fiducie sont alimentés par des contributions provenant des employeurs et des employés. La province verse une subvention non renouvelable équivalente à la moitié de ces contributions, jusqu'à concurrence de $100,000.

Our review has indicated that the program has met its objectives. I am pleased to tell the House we have decided to continue the program to stimulate new trust funds. I believe there is a continued need to encourage labour management co-operation in the training process. As well, the trust fund approach means people are getting training that would not otherwise be available.

The Ontario training trust fund program will continue to support the establishment of new training trust funds by employer-employee groups, with particular emphasis on the industry and service sectors which are currently underrepresented in training activity. The $100,000 limit on provincial contributions to individual trusts will remain in place.

Once established, these and existing trust funds will have access to training consulting services and funding support under the province's incentive programs for training, namely, Ontario Skills and Trades Updating. They will deal with local Ontario skills development offices, established across the province under Ontario's Training Strategy.

We will also continue our commitment to broadening community-based, employment-related services by supporting Ontario help centres. Help centres offer services consistent with the commitment of the Ministry of Skills Development to a range of employability and training-related services, especially for the unemployed. Over the next six months, we will work with the 17 help centres and associated community organizations to focus the objective of our program and the services which the Ministry of Skills Development can support. This consultation will explore the appropriateness of adding greater stability through multi-year financing.

Both of these ministry programs are important to our multilevel approach to employability and training. We are happy to be able to continue to support them.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My statement concerns changes to the capital tax payable by Ontario's farm equipment dealers. Rather than wait for the upcoming budget, I am today announcing a temporary two-year capital tax reduction program for these dealers. The farm equipment industry has generally not participated in the economic upturn being experienced by most sectors of the Ontario economy. It is dependent on the farm sector which, as we all know, currently faces economic difficulties.

While I do not believe the problem is a long-term one, the hardship these dealers are experiencing is, none the less, very real. Many dealers and many members of this House have written to me about the situation and have pointed out how Ontario's capital tax aggravates it. I want to mention specifically the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who have taken the time to sit down and discuss the matter as it relates in their own communities.

As a result, the proposal I am announcing today will reduce to a maximum $200 the capital tax otherwise payable by farm implement dealers on their first $3 million in taxable capital, regardless of the total amount of their taxable capital. This will mean capital tax savings of as much as $17,600 to individual farm equipment dealers over the next two years. It is expected that the all-in cost of the program will be less than $500,000.

The legislation to introduce this measure will be introduced following my 1987 spring budget, God willing. The change will be effective for taxation years beginning after December 31, 1986.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have been informed that legal proceedings have been commenced or are about to commence with respect to the Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. matter. We have been trying to get answers from this government for six months. Where is the statement from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) about this?

RESPONSES

JOB TRAINING

Mr. Grossman: I listened with some interest to the announcements made by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) and I quickly reached back for the 1984 Ontario budget. I was pleased to see there on page 5 the following words: "We will create, for the first time in Canada, an incentive to establish training trust funds which will encourage workers and firms to undertake continuous training efforts." Unfortunately, in that year we indicated that the maximum we could make available was $100,000 per firm.

I am disappointed about two things: first, that the minister has failed to acknowledge that the pioneer effort in training trust funds came from the previous government three years ago; and second, that the minister could not get a piece of the $919 million extra to increase -- perhaps modestly, should we say -- his support for this very worthwhile program introduced by his predecessor, perhaps to increase the maximum from $100,000 to $200,000 per firm. His friend the Treasurer has $919 million extra.

I also thought it might have been good if the minister had looked back on page 6 of the 1984 budget where it says, "The government will provide financial assistance to unemployed help centres run by trade unions." Again, the minister today is announcing continuation of the support for a program that was started in 1984. I know the minister, who is so fond of talking about the past 42 years, would have wanted to point out those two highlights of one of the many budgets introduced in those 42 years -- two programs which he is now trying to claim ownership for, and we are not going to make it easy for him.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Grossman: Finally, I want to turn to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We are delighted to see he has been reading some of our literature suggesting that finally he give some money back to the people of this province. I find it more than passing strange that it is now February 1987 when he is beginning to follow through on his one promise in the budget to reduce the tax burden. His gasoline tax increase, his personal income tax increase, his corporate income tax increase and his land transfer tax increase, those he put on right away and collected extra money from the day his budget came in.

For a reduction of taxes, the one minor item in there to reduce taxes, something we have been calling for for a long time, he did not quite get around to that until February 1987, let the record note, several weeks after the Progressive Conservative Party said it was time to give some of his $919-million tax increase back to the people of this province.

Mr. Stevenson: I also want to respond to the capital tax reduction program that the Treasurer has announced. This was mentioned to me by Arnold Kerry, who is from Utica Farm Equipment and first vice-president of the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association, over a year ago.

The inventory tax is something that I think is going to be a problem for the farm machinery dealers for much more than two years. Certainly the hardship is associated with the doldrums that the agricultural industry is now in, and of course that tax is passed on to farmers who cannot afford to pay it right now; but there have been changes in the industry that I think are not going to go away in two years.

First of all, the nature of the billings by many of the farm machinery manufacturers is such that much of the inventory is now being carried by the dealers and not by the companies. Many of those companies are billing immediately; that equipment shows up as inventory on the dealers' lots, and they are being forced to show that as inventory and pay tax on it. I suspect that is not going to change in two years. It is likely going to be with us indefinitely. I feel this particular move should be made permanent whenever the minister brings forward legislation to deal with the problem.

JOB TRAINING

Mr. Warner: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara). Reading one of his statements is like rereading Through the Looking-Glass. It is really quite incredible. He professes support for the help centres, yet the badgering these help centres have undergone confirms that the real intent of the government is to allow the centres to close. Politically, the government knows that is unacceptable in what is likely to be an election year; instead, it is quite prepared to allow them to die.

How does the government do that? By ensuring those centres, which are struggling a bit in trying to raise money locally, do not get the kind of support and help they desperately need, and in some cases simply by making sure the cheques do not come through as in the case of Brantford and they end up having to lay off staff. It has been a totally disorganized approach. In the process, the government has made it quite clear that it does not want the involvement of the Ontario Federation of Labour. It is a shameful way to run any kind of program.

With respect to the Ontario skills development offices, the government professes support, and yet the reality is that in the case of the north, for example, there is no attempt to make sure they meet local needs. When the Sault College attempts to establish an office in Blind River and Elliot Lake, the ministry does not seem to understand that a course needs to be mounted which is tailored to meet a small number of people to help establish local businesses in the hospitality industry or light industry that is related to recreation or to help with some of the health care community service sector which requires training.

In the case of the Sault, they were looking for in the neighbourhood of $300,000 to establish the two centres, one at Blind River and one at Elliot Lake. They got half that amount of money. The lame excuse given by the ministry was: "We do not have enough money. It is an extra $150,000. We do not have enough money."

These folks have probably spilled that much on their plane trips.

The needs of the north are well documented. There is a high rate of unemployment. There is a crying need to develop the kinds of skills that are needed to tackle the high-tech world and supply long-term, stable jobs. This government has failed once again and failed miserably.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: I would like to respond to the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). This will be welcome news to the farm equipment dealers today. We know they have been affected because of the downturn in the agricultural industry and naturally that affects the farmers. They have been stuck with large inventories, and reducing the maximum of $200 on the capital tax would be --

Interjection.

Mr. Hayes: I see. It is very timely for the minister to do this. The retail farm equipment dealers' annual meeting is next week and I am sure the minister will be glad to announce it. Good timing.

Mr. Foulds: I too would like to respond to the Treasurer's statement and indicate that there is a particular and severe problem in this area. However, I am pleased that the Treasurer has introduced it as a temporary measure, and I hope the Treasury officials and the Revenue officials would, during the course of this tax reduction, monitor the loss of revenue to the Treasury and to Ontario and the subsequent benefits to the dealers, so that we can have a tracking of its value in terms of both parties to this agreement.

I notice and applaud that the Treasurer is announcing it now because he plans to make it effective at the beginning of this calendar year. Making the announcement now, even though the legislation will not be brought forward until after the budget, makes some sense. This may be the first dribble from a good news budget, and I suspect we may very well have a hint here that we will be hitting the hustings some time this year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Last week, we were discussing his government's refusal to help the disabled people of Ontario with the money being sent along by the federal government. We have checked with the federal department and found that both British Columbia and Alberta are exercising their option to provide $175 additional assistance to the disabled. Ontario has not.

As Premier, how can he explain the circumstance where Ontario is not doing what British Columbia and Alberta have done for their disabled?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that matter to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are 83,000 disabled people in Ontario who get a Gains-D pension from the provincial government, and 13,000 of them also get a Canada pension. It is only those 13,000 people who got the increase, not the other 70,000. It was the understanding between the province and the federal government that the increase would be offset at the provincial level, and that is what we did.

Mr. Grossman: I want to send over to the minister a copy of the federal legislation, which is the legislation governing this transaction in the flow of funds. I wonder if the minister, in answering the supplementary, might be kind enough to point out to me what

section of that legislation prohibits him from doing what British Columbia and Alberta have done, which is to increase assistance for the disabled by $150 to $175 a month. What

section in the act prohibits him from doing that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is nothing in the act that would prevent me from increasing assistance to the disabled, if I did it for all 83,000, but I cannot do it just for the 13,000 who come under the jurisdiction of the Canada pension plan. That is the problem.

Mr. McClellan: You are wrong. You can designate that income.

Mr. Grossman: My colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is absolutely right. The minister can. I sent the copy of that legislation over to him precisely because he is unable to indicate what it is in the legislation that prohibits him from doing what the other provinces have done and flowing that money through to the disabled people in this province.

The Premier was asked by me last week whether he thought $7,200 a year for the disabled was an adequate amount of money. He ducked answering, but the bottom line was that he was embarrassed by the question. That is why he keeps referring the supplementaries to the minister.

Does the minister believe that $7,200 a year is enough money for the disabled people of this province? Does he or does he not? If he does not think it is enough money, why does he not take some of the extra $919 million the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has and give it to the disabled people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable leader well knows, the Treasurer has already directed $92 million to my ministry. Some of those dollars have gone to the disabled, some to the elderly and some to children.

Mr. Grossman: How much has gone to the disabled? How much more are the disabled going to get this year? Tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The total increase in expenditures for the disabled in the past year has been $41 million. The increase in this particular program is $18 million and the net gain to the disabled is very clear.

Mr. Grossman: The net gain is to the Treasurer of Ontario, who hijacked that money on the way from the federal government to the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question and to which minister?

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Grossman: I have a question to the Premier, if he will agree to accept it. Will the Premier answer this question for us as directly as possible? Will he tell us whether the Ontario government submitted a proposal to the federal government agreeing to a proposal that a 10 per cent voluntary tariff be placed on Canadian softwood lumber? Did his government participate in a proposal to accept the 10 per cent voluntary surcharge?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe we went through this discussion in some detail some time ago. I recounted to the honourable member the progression of events at that time and how the situation developed. I gather there were discussions at the time. Ontario reluctantly agreed to go along when the announcement was made, but it is something we were not very comfortable with. The member knows what happened subsequent to that event.

Mr. Grossman: I want to talk about the Premier's changed story. Earlier he was saying he had nothing to do with it. Now, under questioning, he must admit that indeed he did have something to do with it. I want to put it to him this afternoon in a very serious allegation that he not only had something to do with it but also Ontario was one of the major players in suggesting that a 10 per cent voluntary tariff was the appropriate way to go.

I want to put this question to the Premier: will he acknowledge this afternoon that the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Mary Mogford, joined her colleagues the deputies from British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec in putting in writing a proposal in late September for the acceptance of a 10 per cent surcharge on Canadian softwood?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again, I think we have gone through this in some considerable amount of detail. I am not sure what my honourable friend's federal colleagues are telling him. They may not be telling it to him completely squarely, I say to my honourable friend.

He knows how that 10 per cent offer came about. Ontario reluctantly went along with it at the time, as was discussed in this House; there is nothing new about that. We thought it was wrong, but in the interests of a national consensus, we tried to be co-operative. But once that offer was turned down, as the member will recall, Miss Carney said that was the final offer, and subsequent to that, there were many other final offers.

I think my honourable friend's information that is coming from his federal colleagues is inaccurate.

Mr. Grossman: This is a very important issue, because it speaks very much to the veracity of the information that is coming forward from the Premier's government to this House and the people of Ontario with regard to the 1,000 jobs in the softwood lumber industry in this province.

The information we have does not come from the source the Premier suggests. It comes, in fact, from David Redgrave of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, who said in estimates on February 5 to my colleague, simply put:

"I was not there to bind; Mary Mogford was there to bind us. She had the offer, which was then brought back for ratification and a letter went off to them." My colleague said, "Was it ratified?" and Mr. Redgrave, the Premier's employee, said, "Yes, a letter went." "A letter went from who?" "It went from Mary Mogford to Gerry Shannon," of the federal government.

My question finally to the Premier is a simple one, in an attempt to have him clarify the record and state honestly what the position of his government was at that crucial time. Will the Premier acknowledge today that in late September, before the federal announcement was made, his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources wrote the federal government agreeing -- she did not say reluctantly -- to a proposal put forward by her and her three provincial counterparts to put a 10 per cent tariff on softwood lumber?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This question was raised by the member's colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) yesterday, l believe. I say to my honourable friend, with respect, that he is flogging a dead horse. As he knows, I shared the information with him of how it happened, what happened, our views on the situation and what happened at that particular event. It had nothing to do with what ultimately transpired.

I do not know why my honourable friend is so exercised about this, except that he is on instructions from someone in Ottawa in this regard. But I tell him, Ottawa knows our position. They knew it then and they know it now, and the member knows our position as well.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister has seen a copy of the latest publication of the Insurance Bureau of Canada called Facts of the General Insurance Industry in Canada. It is a very well laid-out document. It has a picture of a hand holding a pencil, and one of the notations says "3×2=5," which perhaps aptly summarizes some of the problems we face with the insurance industry these days.

Is the minister aware of one of the statistics the Insurance Bureau of Canada highlights in the document entitled Facts, which is that the amount of money paid out in claims in 1985 was a full 21 per cent higher than in 1984 and yet it took in only a mere 12 per cent more in premiums? Is this the kind of statistic the minister has been referring to when he defends the insurance industry in the House?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have seen the publication. I do not know all the figures in it from memory. The statistic I was using was the statistic reported by the industry, that in 1985, for every dollar of premium received, $1.31 was paid out in claims.

Mr. Rae: That figure is not contained in this document. Although we do have, as I say, the news that, according to the industry, three times two equals five, we do not have that other statistic to which the minister refers. Can the minister explain why, if they talk about those figures and the minister indeed does the same, we do not have a comparison for the last five years?

For example, we would learn, and I wonder whether the minister is aware of this fact, that if you look at the amount of money that is taken in in premiums, you see a 45 per cent increase in terms of total premiums written, from $3 billion in 1981 to $4.4 billion in 1985, but when you look at the total claim amounts there is only a 35 per cent increase -- in other words, an increase of some $900 million less. Why would the minister not be making that kind of statement in the House to indicate just how much more money has been taken in in premiums than has been paid out in claims?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The reason I have not been making that kind of relationship is that the member is talking about a global figure, total amounts. I am talking on a per capita basis, so we can take a look at the situation that is being dealt with in this instance. We are saying that because of the claims record in Ontario, which is almost twice that of any other jurisdiction in Canada, we cannot compare different jurisdictions with Ontario.

Let me give the leader of the third party an example. There was a letter in the Vancouver Province from a person from Manitoba who moved to Vancouver and got insurance. They were complaining that when they were in Manitoba they paid some $500 to insure a Jeep vehicle. They went to Vancouver, which also has government insurance, and for the same insurance paid over $1,000. They were complaining about having to pay this amount of money. It has nothing to do with the fact that government is running it. It has to do with the fact that there are different claim experiences in different jurisdictions.

Mr. Rae: I am asking the minister -- who is responsible for consumer and commercial relations in the province; who is supposed to be responsible for protecting consumers -- to tell the House why the insurance industry is spending $7,000 a day to provide the people of Canada with misleading information in very provocative ads that are being shown on prime-time television right across this province.

They are not telling people how much money they are making. They are not telling people what their administrative costs are, which are twice as high as they are in public plans. They are not telling people that they are taking in more money than they are paying out -- far more in terms of the last five years. They are not providing the people of Canada with that information. They are giving them a very partial picture.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: Why is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations tolerating and condoning advertisements and policies of the insurance industry in this country that provide misleading information and a misleading side of what is going on in the lives of drivers in Ontario and right across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of the things that is a fact of life is that at present the insurance industry in Ontario is a private-sector, free-enterprise entity, something the New Democratic Party is not happy with. They have the right to advertise. They have the right to tell their story to the public and the public has the right to accept their story or not. That is called doing business. That is a process we encourage and support.

Mr. Rae: I can see the minister agrees with the insurance industry that three times two equals five.

COAL TAR

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), I have a question of the Premier about the Port Stanley blob. With the amount of time he spends near his constituency, I know he will be aware of the issues involving the discovery of a coal-tar blob near Port Stanley. He will be aware that the excess in terms of levels of benzo-a-pyrene was found to be five million to 200 parts per million, when levels of one part per billion are considered hazardous in sediment.

Can the Premier explain why, up until now, there has still been no clear decision taken on how the sediment is to be completely cleared and who is going to pay for it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the honourable member, but I am not in a position to elucidate on that matter. I can assure him I will immediately take his questions under advisement, get in touch with the appropriate people and get back to him as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rae: It is difficult to ask the minister questions. He frequently is not in a position to answer, because he has been taken off the case. I wanted to ask the Premier this question today and I am sorry he is not aware of it.

Because it involves a country with which he has done business, South Korea, the Premier may be aware that a South Korean oil and solvent refinery called Can-Lube Oil Co. has proposed a $7-million project for this site. There are very extreme objections to this proposal from a number of people living in the Port Stanley area. Can the Premier tell us why the Minister of the Environment has not designated this site as a private project worthy of a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the honourable member, but I will take all his questions to the minister -- I am sure he is on top of the situation -- and report back very shortly.

Mr. Rae: I thought perhaps Mr. Carmen had briefed the Premier on this question, but since he has not, let me ask a general question. Since he is not able to answer any of the specifics, I will ask the Premier about the so-called superfund.

We now know of the existence of several coal-tar sites around the province. The costs of cleanup in Ottawa alone are going to be equal to the size of the so-called fund he has set up in the province to deal with this question.

I wonder why the government has so far failed to do what New York state and a number of others in the United States have done, that is, set up and fund a proper superfund, so we can clean up these blobs, which we now know are going to be discovered all over the province, without causing local municipalities to bankrupt themselves and without continually having to put these questions off when they involve fundamental matters of the health of these communities.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Like the member opposite, I take these matters very seriously.

With respect to the progress of the superfund, there was recently a meeting -- and I cannot tell the member the exact date -- of the environment ministers across this country. Under the leadership of our minister, all the environment ministers agreed to pursue his proposals with respect to a national superfund. That is our preference as a way to approach the problem. We think it is in the national interest to proceed on the same basis.

I am told there is agreement in that regard, in principle at least, and that they are pursuing the proposals put forward by our Minister of the Environment. That does not preclude us from moving on our own, in addition to or instead of that, if it does not come about. This is something that has been under the active review and leadership of this ministry, as the honourable member knows.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Premier. One of the many things he is trying to sweep under the rug before the end of this session is his government's handling of the IDEA Corp. portfolio. I would like to ask him specifically about the Graham Software company, which I first raised in this House last June.

The government invested $5 million in this company between September 1985 and March 1986. During that same period, the gross sales of the company were $200,000 and its gross expenses were close to $3 million. I wonder if the Premier would enlighten me and the House as to why this ludicrous investment was ever made and why there was a complete lack of monitoring capacity on behalf of the Premier's government during that period, to ensure that any of the taxpayers' money in this investment could be recovered.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the member wants to know why things happen like that, it is because the previous government set up the IDEA Corp. without proper rules and regulations to run it. That is why.

Mr. Pope: That is what you said with Wyda too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rowe: Do you ever remember handing out the money, or is this a bad dream we have over here?

Mr. Stevenson: This is called "loans to Liberals." That is a good idea: IDEA Corp. loans to Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Mr. Gillies: This minister is either completely unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his ministry. The $5 million of the taxpayers' money has been lost in this matter, and the fault is nobody's but the minister's.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Ms. Gillies: By way of supplementary, as we watch this $5 million go down the tubes, I would like to ask the minister about the exorbitant fees that were being paid by the shareholders to themselves in this company: salaries, fees, and exorbitant administrative costs.

I would like to quote to the minister from the Supreme Court affidavit that the Ontario Development Corp. filed: "Continuing payments to shareholders at the rates...is totally unjustified and can only be explained as an attempt to fully consume all the resources available to the company."

When this minister knew about the concerns of the opposition about this company last June, I want to know why he did nothing for a period of eight months to try to recover $5 million of the public's money?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the member will recall, we had to take over the whole operation of IDEA Corp. through the ODC to correct a lot of the problems his government caused by not having proper guidelines for IDEA Corp. to operate under.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. McClellan: I have sent the Minister of Labour a copy of a brief on the Workers' Compensation Board vocational rehabilitation service which our caucus is providing to the task force this afternoon. I would like to ask the minister in charge of the WCB the following question.

When the minister assumed office in 1985, the WCB was spending $24 million out of a $1.2 billion budget, or less than two per cent of its total budget, on vocational rehabilitation services for injured workers. Can the minister explain to the House why he has failed so completely to upgrade the level of support given by the WCB to injured workers to aid them in getting back to work and why the rehabilitation service is still the poor cousin of the WCB?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will know the budget of the WCB is now struck after discussions by the board of directors of that board. I share the concern of the member, a concern shared by a number of members in the House, about ensuring that the work of the vocational rehabilitation service of the WCB be enhanced.

One of the reasons we have set up the task force is to find proper ways and means by which the spending of extra money will allow us to deliver a service which is a whole lot better than the service we have been able to deliver in the past. I remain hopeful that at the end of its work the task force will deliver to us recommendations that can be swiftly implemented which will provide for a much better system of vocational rehabilitation in the province, administered by the WCB.

Mr. McClellan: This is the first Minister of Labour since I have served in this House who systematically and consistently absolves himself of responsibility for the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board, the first one in my 12 years here who just washes his hands of responsibility.

By way of supplementary, because he is responsible despite his attempts to pass the buck each and every time, will he give us the assurance that when we come back in April he will bring in a package of legislation for injured workers which (1) gives them the legal right to a job, set out in law; (2) applies a quota system in Ontario requiring business, industry and government to hire their fair share of the physically handicapped; and (3) establishes crown agencies to provide decent, well-paying jobs for injured workers and their families and for other disabled people as well?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will not give the gentleman that commitment today. I will give him a commitment that we will continue to proceed on the process of reform that this government has established, a process which I remind the member has led to the opening of two new regional offices in the past year and a half and which will lead to the opening of a third.

Mr. Rae: If you cannot take responsibility for the problems, do not take credit for what gets done. Do not have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We will also continue the process of beginning to decentralize some of the medical rehabilitation. The member indicated he had some concern that I was the first minister not to take responsibility for the WCB. Indeed, I answer for the WCB in the House, but I point out that I am the first Minister of Labour who has had under his jurisdiction a WCB with an independent board of directors. I hope the member does not wish that, on any and every occasion, I simply walk in and say to the independent board of directors, "I know you have set your budget, but here is how we really want the money spent."

AMATEUR ATHLETES

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Yesterday we had the pleasure of welcoming to the House an outstanding athlete, Ben Johnson. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in responding to a statement reported in Instant Hansard, said the Liberal government has reduced the travelling expense from $16 a kilometre to $4 and has put a radius requirement of 200 kilometres on athletes.

I cannot believe our government would do that; I can believe the Tories might have. I would like to ask the minister whether that is what happened or whether this member is giving us bad goods, just as his friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) did on the day the Ukrainians arrived.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I was disappointed, of course, in yesterday's proceedings, in that the member for Cochrane South had to inject a negative and partisan comment at a time when we were honouring Ontario's outstanding athletes. Unlike our outstanding athletes, the member was completely off the track.

He stated we had reduced travel subsidies and that we had put in a radius requirement of 200 kilometres to attend events. In fact, the rules governing the travel subsidy program have been in place for the past five years; they were placed by the member's government when it was in power. There has been no change in the program; there has been no reduction; there has been no cutback; and there is no such thing as a 200-kilometre radius requirement. The member's statement yesterday, as with most of his statements, has absolutely no basis in fact.

Mr. Callahan: In the light of the significant damage that I am sure occurred as a result of other sports groups getting that misinformation from the member for Cochrane South, I would like to inquire of the minister whether he will undertake in his communication with other sports groups to emphasize the fact that the information the member for Cochrane South gave us was incorrect.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am quite sure the various recreation associations across this province are very much aware of the requirements. On Friday, I will be speaking to the Ontario Recreation Society in Ottawa. I will reinforce our programs. Also, I point out to the honourable member that from his constituency and others I receive weekly letters of thanks and appreciation for the work our ministry is doing in helping young people in schools to attend these conferences.

Mr. Gillies: I wish I had the same writers as member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). That was not a question.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have another question for the Premier about Exploracom, the second instalment of the loans-for-Liberals program. The Premier has consistently refused to table the Coopers and Lybrand report in this House, on which he has hung his hat as the reason for killing Exploracom. Do not bother to send it over; we have a copy right here.

I would like to quote back to the Premier his rationale for killing the program based on this report. He cited a complete lack of private sector financing and said the project was out of control financially and managerially. The only problem is that neither of those conclusions is drawn in this report.

I wonder if the Premier could enlighten us on two things. First, what is the real reason he killed the project? Second, why would he -- I am sure inadvertently -- misinform this House and this province as to the contents of this report? Because he expected we would never see it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have gone through this discussion on many occasions in this House and I am happy to repeat it to my honourable friend.

As a matter of fact, some time ago my honourable friend stood up in this House and cited the lack of private sector participation. As I recall, he used companies such as IBM, Northern Telecom and others that were not participating. That was information he brought to this House. He may remember what he said on that particular occasion.

There were essentially two reasons we did not carry on. Number one was the lack of private sector participation in the exhibits and other areas. Number two -- and the member will be aware of this -- was that the operating funds were not there and it would constitute an ongoing drain on the Treasury. That is the reason the decision was made.

Mr. Gillies: Inasmuch as the Premier's rationale does not quite accord with the advice given him by Coopers and Lybrand, will he now admit that he prematurely and improperly made the commitment to this project in the first place and that he reneged on the commitment for reasons other than those contained in this report? Will the Premier do us the courtesy of admitting that this was a gross error, and can he enlighten us as to how much this mistake will end up costing the people of Ontario before we are through with the whole mess?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, the commitment was made pending certain things happening. They did not happen, unfortunately, and that is the reality of the situation. Perhaps the member has changed his mind and thinks the thing should carry on. I am not sure. My honourable friend keeps changing his mind in that regard.

I say very frankly the money was not there. We were prepared to make a tough decision. It was not a decision I enjoyed making at all, but we felt it was in the best interests of the taxpayers. Occasionally, people have to do that on this side of the House. We are prepared to do it. The decision stands on its own merits.

HOSPICE FUNDING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the funding of the AIDS hospice. The minister is aware that the group of volunteers who are committed to funding the AIDS hospice have put in an offer on a property. It does not require any renovation; it is ideally suited. They have raised $500,000 and they are in need of $1 million in capital funding from Ontario.

There have been numerous meetings with the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health, officials in the minister's department and other officials on the government side. Can they get a firm commitment from the minister today that this house and this hospice, this project, will be funded so they do not lose the property? As I say, they will lose it if they do not get the funding by February 28.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows that we are aware of this particular program. He knows I would be unable to make such an announcement today in this House about the funding of that program. He gave some indication that no renovations are required for the particular facility. That is something we do not know absolutely for sure. We must make sure that the facility, if it were to be considered, would be in compliance with fire and other regulations.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the ministry met yesterday, I believe even late last evening, with the volunteer leadership of that proposal. We are interested in examining the aspects of the proposal, which have been thoroughly discussed as a result of last night's meeting. I can tell the gentleman as well that one of the items I am further interested in is the manner in which services can be delivered in the community, as well as under the circumstances as put forward by the particular project. My officials are in fact working on that item, as well as the proposal in detail.

From the report or the briefing I received this morning from my assistant deputy minister, I thought the meeting indeed was constructive, and they are pursuing the avenues of study with respect to the details of the proposal.

Mr. Rae: There is an enormous sense of frustration in this group, which, as the minister will know, has had this project in mind for several weeks. Indeed, the offer was made several weeks ago. They have been basically moved from pillar to post, from the Ministry of Housing to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Housing and back and forth, and as yet they have no clear indication.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, is it true that one of the concerns expressed by his officials was that there did not appear to be any legislation under which a capital grant could be made? If that is true, I wonder if the minister can explain why the government has not made that kind of legislation a priority in this House so that the hospice can be funded, people can be cared for in a humane way that is close to the community and based in the community and that allows people to be cared for in their last days in a way they feel is most appropriate rather than in another institution.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the sentiment expressed by the honourable leader is important to all of us, and that is that there be a caring and humane atmosphere in which people are cared for.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the question about the allocation of capital funds was a concern in that the hospice itself and the manner in which it was expressed to us was not a program within which we had a mandate to transfer capital funds. I think the honourable gentleman would also know, perhaps from speaking with the people who were in attendance at last night's meeting, that there are avenues that have been explored that I think might deal with that particular difficulty. The detailed analysis and proposals, which I was briefed on this morning, are being worked up into some detail for me to take a look at and decide upon what avenue we might very well proceed.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that they understand very well that the Ministry of Health is the appropriate place to be under the circumstance, and it is only my requirement that we build in adequate safeguards to ensure good --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. We have already dealt today with the accuracy of the statements that are being made in this House. We have established that where he said he could not flow money on to the disabled, he could. We have established that where he denied he was part of the softwood tariff agreement, he was. We have established that the Coopers and Lybrand report did not say the things he alleged it did.

I want to give the Premier an opportunity to deal with the same question of veracity of information. I wonder if the Premier agrees with this statement made by his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the matter of aboriginal rights in this province. The Attorney General said, "The one direction we are not going to follow is the direction that was followed by the previous government of Ontario." Does that reflect the policy of the present government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that matter to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this question because the other day in the House, the member from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) indicated that the policy of the Conservative Party was different from the policy of the Liberal Party and that the policy of the previous Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), was different. Of course, that is not true.

Our policy on the question of entrenchment of constitutional rights is precisely the policy that the previous government adopted. I hope it is going to be more effectively pursued, but it is the same policy. In his statement, the member for Muskoka said: "This approach" -- the approach the Conservative government was taking -- "would see us recognize an aboriginal right to self-government within the Canadian federation and then make the right operative only through negotiated agreements among the federal government, the provinces or territories and the various aboriginal peoples."

That was the policy of the previous government, and that is the policy of this government as we move towards a negotiated constitutional amendment. The member was wrong when he said the member for Muskoka had adopted some other policy. I am glad to have the opportunity to correct for him, regrettably in his absence, the record that he has abused.

Mr. Grossman: If the Attorney General wishes to take this opportunity to correct the record, (

a) we will be appreciative and (

b) it will set a new precedent for the minister in showing some humility in trying to correct the record in terms of his record.

The Attorney General has just recited at length his plea that he is taking the same position as the previous government. I want to read to the minister his own words from page 2904 of Hansard. In responding to my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea, he said, and I quote directly his words, "The one direction we are not going to follow is the direction that was followed by the previous government of Ontario."

My supplementary question to the Attorney General is this. Would he now disavow what he said to my colleague last fall and would he confirm that his position has now changed from the day when he said that the one position he was not going to follow was the position of the former government, to today when he is saying it is precisely that position? Will he correct the record and say he was wrong last fall?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is confusing apples with oranges. The policy that the member for High Park-Swansea referred to is the policy supported by our government, by the government led by the member for Muskoka and, I believe, by the third party. The issue he is now referring to is a different one.

Mr. Grossman: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is precisely a different one and it is this issue, just so the member will understand: will the government of the day --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to respond. The second issue that the honourable leader refers to is raised by the following question, which was presented to the previous government and to our government and has nothing to do with entrenchment. It has to do with this: "Will you, the government of Ontario, support a resolution inconsistent with your policy, if the aboriginal people tell you to oppose it?" That was the issue; and on that issue, which is not an issue of entrenchment, we disagree with the previous government and perhaps with the third party.

Just one other matter: if we are going to have a choice between accuracy and humility, unlike the honourable leader, I prefer accuracy. It is going to be quite a day when I take humility lessons --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, we will just wait.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I hope he will be both humble and accurate.

The other day, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) approached me about a case of an adopted person who was waiting an inordinate length of time for nonidentifying information about herself from the local children's aid society in Toronto. I phoned and discovered that with the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, one has to wait a year and a half to get nonidentifying information because it has no workers, it just has volunteers dealing with it. Is the minister aware that around Ontario there are no full-time post-adoption workers in any children's aid society?

In Ottawa, one has to wait one year and a half to get nonidentifying information; some large institutions such as the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto do not even provide nonidentifying information; and in other places, such as Hamilton, one has to wait up to six months.

Does the minister accept that as an appropriate state of affairs and what is he going to do with the new act that is coming in that will create a great deal more work when there is no infrastructure out there to provide information to people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not agree that is an appropriate situation. The new act is being implemented in conjunction primarily with the children's aid societies that are going to have to be mostly responsible for the nonidentifying information, although the ministry will be responsible for the disclosure registry. I will certainly commit to the member, and to all the adopted people in the province who need the information, that what he describes will have to change.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Will the minister give us a commitment today on the amount of money he is going to provide and the number of workers this will mean? The act states that there will be six-month limits to the search and that the CASs shall promptly make that information available from the registrar with counselling to adopted people.

Can the minister guarantee us today that adequate funds and adequate staffing will be made available to be put into place as soon as this act is proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The cabinet submission that requested approval to proceed with the legislation contained a cost element for both the children's aid society staff and the counselling staff, and for setting up the new provisions in the registry. That was approved by cabinet; that is a part of the submission and a part of the approval of the legislation. So the answer is yes, they will both go forward simultaneously. I am sorry I cannot quote a figure; I just cannot remember what it was.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Mr. Callahan: The member for Cochrane South had better be accurate this time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No; he is going to be humble today.

Mr. Pope: Pretty soon the government is going to have to apologize for the mess that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has made out of the IDEA fund; that is what it is going to have to do.

WYDA SYSTEMS (CANADA) INC.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister confirm that an injunction has been issued against the officials of Wyda corporation in the Supreme Court of Ontario this morning? If so, why have the minister and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) refused to tell the people of the province and the House what is going on in this matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would be very pleased to let the member know what is going on. I apologize that no word went to the public accounts committee. A couple of days ago, we got word in our ministry that Mr. Dobzinski was trying to remove certain personal assets and other assets from Canada. We therefore went before the court to petition the court to put a hold on those items, which has been done.

Mr. Pope: Throughout this matter, we have had to raise the questions. There has never been a statement out of the minister that has been helpful in providing information to members of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder why.

Mr. Pope: I wonder why; because red ties are drawn all the way through it. It has involved members of the Liberal Party.

I want to know what is going on with the OPP investigation. Is it completed? Is it sitting on the desk of the Attorney General? Why is it not being proceeded with?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I beg to differ with the member. My ministry, through the Ontario Development Corp., has been very co-operative with the public accounts system. We have kept members up to date on what is happening. I apologize for not letting the members know on this particular issue. I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) dealt yesterday with his accusations about the Attorney General.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As the minister knows, there is a crying need for speech pathologists in northern Ontario. There are patient waiting lists of up to nine months.

After being fully briefed yesterday in estimates, will the minister make the commitment, first, that the program of bursaries for students, administered through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, will be improved so that there will be more than 10 measly bursaries each year; and second, that the program will be expanded so that those Ontario students who are forced to study outside Canada and want to return to northern Ontario will be eligible for the bursaries?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am delighted the honourable member has brought this matter up again today. We discussed it at great length yesterday in estimates. I must say he has taught me a great deal about a situation that, frankly, I was not personally aware of.

We are working on the situation. There is a real problem with a shortage of professionals in northwestern Ontario, and in northeastern Ontario for that matter. It is not only in this area. I know of the member's personal knowledge and commitment on this issue. I can assure him the matter is under very active review, as he was told yesterday, and that we are expecting and hoping to have an announcement in the not-too-distant future. The suggestions he made yesterday and in this House today are constructive and helpful and we will try to get back to him as soon as we can when we have some successful resolution to the problem.

Mr. Foulds: I point out to the Premier that he is the minister and he is responsible. What I want from him is a commitment today. There are 14 vacancies in the health facilities in northwestern Ontario alone. There is a need in every other facility, such as the regional children's centre under the jurisdiction of Community and Social Services, which has had vacancies for three speech pathologists for three years; the ministry has threatened to withdraw the funds for the positions if they are not filled. There are needs in school boards and in hospitals. Ontario can train only 25 students annually.

Will the Premier make a commitment that those Ontario students, such as my two constituents whom I brought to his attention yesterday, who want to return to northern Ontario, will get the bursaries and training so people can get speech pathology in Ontario by Ontarians?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member makes today the identical point he made yesterday, albeit with a little more eloquence and persuasion in his voice. I appreciate there is a point. There is merit in being repetitive. I told the member yesterday we expect an announcement in the not-too-distant future. As I recall, he said then that if we did not he would "raise hell." I did not realize he was giving me only 24 hours. I thought he was giving me a little more time than that.

I know the honourable member is deeply interested. I promise to convey the information to him. The point he raises is legitimate, even if the way in which he raises it is sometimes tiresome.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: My question is for the Premier, who doubles as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. On December 5, 1986, he sent me a letter in response to a request of mine that he include the riding of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all ministries in the Ontario government. In his letter he states: "I will review the matter with my colleagues, the honourable ministers Conway, Elston and Kerrio, to determine if there is some opportunity to adopt a more consistent approach in our treatment of the Parry Sound area."

I would like to know whether, more than two months later, this review has taken place and what the outcome of it was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware there is a rather confused situation with respect to the designation of northern Ontario. I recall, for example, and the member may not, when there was some difficulty with respect to the electoral prospects in Parry Sound. The member will recall that it was at that point the then government designated Parry Sound a northern area for purposes of cheaper licence plates. In the eyes of the former government, northern Ontario was wherever its electoral prospects were dim. In their opinion, the entire province could be categorized as northern Ontario today.

I say to the member that the matter is under review. I am glad he raised it in the House today. I am sorry he has not been in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines estimates. I have not seen him there. A lot of his colleagues were there discussing these issues, and I know he cares about them passionately.

I invite the member to come to my estimates as we discuss these issues of the day and get in his suggestions, because it has been a very worthwhile and constructive conversation. I think the member will notice that the new minister has defended those estimates with great alacrity.

Mr. Eves: The Premier will know, as he is so knowledgeable about the riding of Parry Sound becoming part of northern Ontario, that in 1977 the former administration was requested by the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association to bring the riding of Parry Sound into northern Ontario for the purposes of the then Ministry of Northern Affairs only. That request was acceded to by the former administration.

He will also know that over the course of some years various ministries were brought on stream from time to time. He will recall that in 1985, when my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was Minister of Natural Resources, he made a commitment to bring Parry Sound riding into northern Ontario. He will also recall that his Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), when he announced northern travel grants to northern Ontario, chose not to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

The Premier will also recall that he is the same minister of northern development who decided he did not have the time to devote to the ministry of northern development estimates. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) was in Parry Sound two weeks ago and said he would look into this matter, as did the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine).

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I may be wrong, but when the member mentions an election, I feel there is terror in his voice. Maybe I am misinterpreting that. He is fearful, obviously, that we will do something such as his government did when it designated Parry Sound a northern constituency for the purpose of licence plates. We do not fool around the same way the former government did and we do not regard our responsibilities the same way.

If my honourable friend considers himself to be a northern member, why has he not shown up at the northern affairs estimates? Why has he not been there fighting for the people of northern Ontario? I have been there fighting. His colleagues have been there fighting. I am there fighting for the people of Parry Sound, and he is nowhere to be seen.

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, you have already allowed the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) to prevent me from asking a supplementary, but I will proceed with my question to the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health should know that in northeastern Ontario there is a detox centre for men, there is a recovery home for men and there is a treatment program for men, where men can actually stay in as they are recovering. Why is there only one recovery home for women and why will this minister not provide them with a penny of funding?

Despite the fact that the district health council has set it as a number one priority, this minister has refused to offer one penny of assistance to that recovery home for women in Sudbury. Why is that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We received recommendations on new programs from a number of areas in the province. There has not been a great deal of activity with respect to alcohol and drug abuse programs around the province, and we are doing the best we can to meet an increasing need. The member's area has needs, and so does northwestern Ontario. There are all kinds of areas that did not receive assistance on the basis that we had funds of a limited nature. We applied them to the several projects we were able to rank in terms of priority in some of the areas that were not already covered.

I can tell the honourable gentleman I am not satisfied with our efforts yet in regard to funding very worthwhile and progressive programs. We will again look at our opportunities when the funding is available. We will look at the newly submitted or resubmitted programs with a mind to looking at distribution of alcohol treatment facilities around the province.

VISITORS

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know both you and the members of the Legislature would want to welcome the guests we have in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon from the Peel Association of Handicapped Adults. We thank you for the privilege of using your gallery and the access to it for the disabled guests who are visiting us today.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOME

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition signed by 40 residents of Williamsburg and area, which reads as follows:

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

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

"On behalf of the executive and members of the Park Drive Villa Tenants' Association, Township of Williamsburg Nonprofit Housing Development for Seniors, we would like to submit this petition with attached signatures in support of the board's application for a nursing care facility here. At the moment, elderly residents of the township who can no longer care for themselves must be moved miles from their friends and relatives."

I support this petition.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I present a petition by commuters using GO Transit from Richmond Hill and Langstaff to Toronto who are concerned with the lack of service for commuters from north of Metropolitan Toronto into Toronto. They want to have the service upgraded and improved so that transit riders from outside Metro can get into the city. Inasmuch as the service now provided is incomplete and inadequate, they are asking that more trains be provided later on in the day.

"The following people request that later trains in the evening be added to the

schedule of GO Transit on the Union Station-Richmond Hill line. This is an urgent concern to the people of north Metro asking that the service be increased so that we are treated the same as the east-west commuters."

Mr. Speaker: I know all members are aware of the rules for petitions. They can present the information that is contained directly within the petition. I believe the member might have been straying a little bit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of private conversations that really are not private at all. We can hear all of them.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Mr. Wildman: This is an important petition, even if members do not believe so.

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Honourable Bernard Grandmaître, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Minister of Natural Resources:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario government to provide emergency grants to shoreline property owners to pay for remedial works to repair and prevent further damage. In addition, we petition the provincial government to press the federal government to implement an overall joint program of grant assistance for shoreline property owners to address the long-term need for protection of the shoreline resulting from the high water levels in the Great Lakes."

This petition is signed by 260 residents of Saint Ste. Marie and Algoma district communities. I am in support of the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills, without amendment:

Bill Pr61,

An Act to revive the Migraine Foundation;

Bill Pr66,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin; Bill Pr53,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee will recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin, and Bill Pr61,

An Act to revive the Migraine Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on the administration of justice reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Law officer of the crown program, $4,675,000; administrative services program, $69,157,000; guardian and trustee services program, $9,492,000; crown legal services program, $28,658,000; legislative counsel services program, $2,007,000; courts administration program, $119,971,000; administrative tribunals program, $12,377,000; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Administrative services program, $2,007,900.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $10,060,600, industrial relations program, $6,915,100; labour relations board program, $6,470,300; occupational health and safety program, $33,824,500; employment standards program, $6,890,200; human rights commission program, $5,677,500; workers' compensation advisory program, $3,300,100; and

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $1,824,900; workers' compensation advisory program, $1,034,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 203,

An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I am introducing a number of amendments to the Public Lands Act. These amendments, which are long overdue, will bring the act up to date and improve my ministry's ability to manage crown lands effectively, efficiently and economically.

Some 87 per cent of all Ontario is crown land administered under the Public Lands Act. It is a responsibility that neither I nor my ministry takes lightly. The amendments I am proposing to the act will give the Ministry of Natural Resources the power and authority to manage these lands in a manner consistent with the new approach taken by this government, and will allow us to use our crown lands as a development tool.

For example, one amendment will increase fines for infractions of the act to a more realistic level and thus seek to deter them. As well, people who illegally dump or build on crown lands will be made liable for the cleanup and rehabilitation of these lands. Another amendment will see a variety of work permits replaced by one multipurpose work permit. This commonsense approach will not only reduce the red tape, but will also have the added benefit of making it easier to control harmful operations being conducted without authorization.

The general purpose of these amendments is to correct weaknesses and shortcomings in the existing act as identified to us by the people of Ontario. I believe the amendments will result in improving the quality and product capacity of our crown lands and waters, which will be to the obvious benefit of all.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 204,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act and the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation provides the authority to implement a uniform county-wide assessment where the council of a county and the majority of the local municipalities within the county request this type of assessment update.

Under a uniform county-wide assessment, the assessments pertaining to all properties within a county are adjusted to a common base by property class. It provides that where uniform county-wide assessment has occurred, regularized assessment updates utilizing current market values will be made at least every four years.

Cette mesure apporte également des modifications au mode d'imposition pour permettre aux municipalités locales, au comté et aux conseils scolaires intéressés à percevoir le même taux d'imposition pour les propriétés résidentielles, ainsi qu'un taux uniforme pour les propriétés commerciales de chacune de leurs juridictions.

This change will provide a significant improvement to the property tax system that now exists for the 26 county areas in this province.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 205,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 206,

An Act to amend certain Acts Respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act.

Ce projet de loi apportera plusieurs amendements aux règlements établis pour les municipalités régionales. Il permettra, par exemple, à chaque conseil régional de disposer de pouvoirs bien définis pour fluoriser son eau potable. Il aura également pour effet d'assujettir chaque conseil régional à l'article 112 de la

Loi sur les municipalités, qui interdit aux conseils municipaux d'accorder des primes à des entreprises commerciales.

This legislation will also make several amendments to individual regional statutes. For example, it will permit the Ottawa-Carleton regional council to establish a day care service area and set up a 911 emergency response system for the benefit of the residents of the entire region.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 207,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: J'ai l'honneur de présenter aujourd'hui, pour la première lecture, un projet de loi visant à amender la

Loi sur la municipalité du district de Muskoka.

This legislation, unanimously requested by the councils of the district and local municipalities, changes the allocation of the planning authority to create a full two-tier system. At present, the authority to adopt official plans and amendments is assigned only to the district level. With the proposed amendment, all local municipalities will be able to prepare and adopt their own official plans and amendments, as is the case in most other regional-type municipalities.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Planning Act 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Planning Amendment Act.

Les modifications envisagées dans ce texte de loi auront pour effet d'augmenter l'efficacité de la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire, tout en respectant ses principes fondamentaux.

The contents of this bill have been discussed with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Urban Development Institute, the Ontario Municipal Board and affected provincial agencies. All are in support of the intent of this bill.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 209,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading a bill to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. This legislation will make several amendments to the act. For example, it will set out the functions, powers and duties of the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board.

Il aura également pour effet d'assujettir le conseil de la communauté urbaine à l'article 112 de la

Loi sur les municipalités, qui interdit aux conseils municipaux d'accorder des primes à des entreprises commerciales. Il apportera aussi un léger ajustement aux limites de la communauté urbaine de Toronto avec les régions de Peel et de York pour tenir compte d'une modification du tracé d'une route.

This legislation will also make a number of housekeeping amendments to the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 127,

An Act to revise the Surveyors Act;

Bill 156,

An Act to amend the Securities Act;

Bill 159,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act;

Bill 189,

An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act;

Bill 192,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, moved third reading of Bill 199,

An Act to amend the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved second reading of Bill Pr59,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

WILLIAMS CREEK GOLD QUARTZ MINING CO. LIMITED ACT

Mr. McFadden moved second reading of Bill Pr60,

An Act to revive Williams Creek Gold Quartz Mining Co. Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

Mr. McCague moved second reading of Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting the Town of Wasaga Beach.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elston, moved second reading of Bill 190,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The minister on the move has returned and I thank my colleague the Treasurer for moving second reading of this bill.

I was busy discussing the bill with my colleagues in the opposition parties with respect to what might follow in terms of our committee deliberations on this very important amendment that is being proposed.

On January 28, I introduced the amendment to the Mental Health Act to replace an amendment that was passed by this House last December during the third reading of omnibus Bill 7, which was entitled the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act. The December amendment removed authority from a psychiatric review board to order treatment for involuntary psychiatric patients when they have refused consent or, in the case of incompetent involuntary patients, when the patient's representatives have refused.

I have introduced this amendment because I am strongly convinced that the legislative change made in December will hinder, not benefit, the provision of necessary mental health services in Ontario. I believe my conviction is shared by most members of the House, as evidenced by the decision to delay implementation of the December amendment until later this year.

I know my conviction is shared by a great number of professionals in the mental health field and by many families of psychiatrically disabled people. I would like to quote from letters for a moment, as is the wont of people dealing with health bills in this House, but I do not intend to speak about or quote at length from those letters I have received as a small sampling of public opinion in the community.

I received a letter from the Psychiatric Nursing Interest Group and I will quote just a small portion from that letter:

"Because we work with such situations every day, we feel that legislators in the name of human rights have ignored a basic right of the mentally ill, the right to receive appropriate care and treatment in the least restrictive environment."

I received the following from the head of psychiatry at the Queensway General Hospital: "The removal of the review board process to ensure the effective treatment of certain psychiatric patients could be detrimental to both the patient and the public at large. We at the Queensway General Hospital strongly feel that the review board

section of Bill 7 should be revoked."

From the chairman of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, I understand a letter was sent to all party leaders saying the following:

"Let us not deprive the individual of the opportunity to get well which is the most important objective of the family. We feel that the present system of review boards should be retained and empowered to make treatment decisions."

From the president of the Canadian Friends of Schizophrenics, there is the following:

"We urge you to press for a reopening of this issue. There is still time to act before the amendment to clause 35(4)(

a) becomes effective on April 1, 1987."

Of course, Bill 199, which I believe has received or will receive third reading shortly, will extend the April 1 deadline to June 1, which gives us adequate time to deal in committee in a very open fashion with the important issues which have been brought to a head by the amendment to Bill 7.

From the executive director of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, there is the following excerpt: "The very purpose of a mental health hospital would be compromised. The hospital would begin to accumulate individuals who are not, in fact, patients but are put in the custodial care of the hospital. A rapid deterioration of service would be experienced, entailing a most regressive development for modern psychiatric practice."

From a citizen whose wife is undergoing severe mental instability, the following is an excerpt:

"I agree that human rights must be extended to all. This right must surely be extended to those who wish to prevent potential violence or danger and to those who wish that someone near and dear to them can be helped."

Finally, a letter from the parents of a psychiatrically disabled son:

"We love our son very much and want him to obtain the help that he desperately needs without hindrance, or does society want this young life to be thrown away?"

Members can see the emotion that is built into the correspondence I have received. It is obviously clear that we must, in a very open and full fashion, discuss the ramifications of how the proposed amendments that I have introduced for discussion might be explored to improve upon the care in the situation we are now faced with. I think the evidence is clear. We must move with dispatch towards the passage of the amendments as suggested, so that we can again adopt good practice in the care of our psychiatrically disabled in Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise to indicate that we will be supporting Bill 190. The bill goes some way to answering a number of concerns that were raised during the debate on Bill 7 with respect to treatment orders that are secured or issued by review boards for incompetent patients.

It is not our desire to impede sick people from getting well. The minister read from a number of letters he had received. I think all of us have received similar types of letters expressing similar concern on both sides of this issue. It is not our desire to see the process grind to a halt and to prevent sick people from receiving the appropriate treatment.

I think the important thing in supporting this bill is that we have begun a review of the process by which treatment orders prescribed by a review board are issued and carried out, and that is the most significant and important aspect of this amendment that is before us.

What we want to achieve in this process is to provide the appropriate and necessary treatment that will help people get well and to protect the patient's interests, the rights of that patient and the interests and rights of the patient's family members, if they exist, when medical practitioners seek these kinds of review orders from a review board.

I am a little hesitant to read from samplings of letters I have received because, as I said, they are similar to letters the minister has received. However, perhaps it is in order for me to read briefly from one letter I doubt the minister received. It says:

"It is my belief that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and collective responsibility. I urge you to assist in moving the bill quickly to committee, where an important public discussion can occur concerning these important issues. It is my hope that all points of view can be examined to assist us to deal with this extremely important matter." This letter was signed by "Murray J. Elston, MPP for Huron-Bruce, Minister of Health."

I did not expect the minister had received a copy of that, but I thought it might be appropriate to put his views on the record if he is hesitant -- and he usually is not -- to do so himself.

We look forward to the discussion we will have in committee. It is an important process of consultation, as the minister points out in his letter to a number of individuals, I am sure -- although I cannot verify that -- including myself. There is no indication that letter has had wide circulation; I just assume it has.

A number of groups are very anxious to come to the committee and tell us of their experience with respect to the orders issued by review boards. As a member of that committee and as one who speaks in this Legislature as a critic for our party, but one who has not had the formal experience or training of many of these concerned individuals who will be able to offer us their experience and background, I am looking forward to that process of consultation and discussion.

Mr. Reville: It is with some chagrin that I take

part in the debate. It is not that the debate should not be occurring, but I was delighted in December when the amendments to Bill 7 proposed by my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) were supported by the Conservatives and, therefore, passed into law. Those were amendments I had been working towards for about 20 years, so my view of this matter is clear and firm. There is no question that the matter we are debating is a difficult one; there is also no question that feelings are very deep and views are very firmly and deeply held about the matter.

No one would want to deprive an individual of the right to get well. Regrettably, there are a large number of factors that conspire to prolong illness or perhaps to cause a recurrence of illness. One of the factors is that the government has failed to provide adequate community mental health services and programming. When a person is discharged from hospital after having suffered an acute bout of illness, he has an inadequate level of support to allow him to stabilize his life and very often ends up back in the hospital.

The record of readmission to psychiatric hospitals in Ontario is a particularly dismal one. It is my view -- and it is a view that is shared by many of my colleagues who are active in the delivery of mental health services -- that one of the primary reasons for recidivism of mental illness is the inadequacy of community mental health programming, which this bill does not address in any way.

The issues that surround the bill are difficult issues and are difficult for society to cope with. They are particularly difficult when a loved one is involved. Over the years, I have had many opportunities, perhaps even more than the Minister of Health has had, to discuss these matters with members of the various chapters of the Friends of Schizophrenics. Recently, I was delighted to accept an invitation to speak to them at their annual general meeting. This was the Ontario

chapter of the Friends of Schizophrenics. We discussed issues that for them, for me and I am sure for other members of this House, are of the utmost importance.

As we go into the debate, it is important to realize that we should not confuse the contents of Bill 190 with questions of the circumstances under which a person may be committed. That is not being dealt with by this legislation, although it is a part of the climate in which we must deal with the legislation. Many of the letters that have been received by members of the Legislature, and certainly by me, relate to concerns people have about the circumstances under which our society thinks it is appropriate to deprive someone of his liberty. In fact, those circumstances are that they must be seen to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Many of the Friends of Schizophrenics are concerned about the difficulty they have in convincing psychiatrists that a relative is a danger to himself or to society and therefore is a person who may be held against his will. That certainly is one of the problems.

The other issue that gets confused when we are talking about the right to consent is the issue of competence which, like the issue of commitment, is also a legal question and also is not dealt with by this legislation, and which the psychiatric profession has been loath to deal with particularly well, saying, and perhaps quite rightly, that its competence does not go particularly well to the legal question of competence.

Again, the question of competence is not dealt with except peripherally by this legislation, but it is one of the issues that is central to the debate. It is and has been my contention for many years that if a person is competent, then his competency should extend to the right of absolute consent; that is to say, because he is competent, he has a right to be involved in his treatment to the extent that he may refuse to accept a particular course of treatment, the length of a course of treatment or all treatment, if that is what he wants to do.

The incidence of a patient refusing all treatment is quite rare. In spite of the vagueness of the statistical information, it is my understanding that the number of treatment orders issued each year under the legislation that was amended by Bill 7 and that would be further amended, if Bill 190 were to carry, is very few, perhaps in the order of 50 to 70.

That is a speculative number because the review boards do not keep statistics in that way; but in conversations with review board chairmen, one of whom told me that in the past year he had issued only three treatment orders, it appears that the bulk of their work does not deal with the question of treatment and consent to treatment. It deals, in the main, with the questions of committal and competency.

We are not talking about a huge problem, nor do I believe there is much credibility to the concern that our psychiatric wards and psychiatric hospitals will become jails or become clogged with people who refuse treatment. I find that kind of rhetorical sally somewhat irresponsible. I am aware that the existence of a difficult patient in a ward of 22 people can disrupt that ward and that there may have to be ways to prevent the refusal of one patient to accept treatment from having an impact on the rest of the patients who have not refused treatment.

Clearly, society does not want to throw away any lives. We must strive to set in place programs, policies and legislative protections that will minimize the loss of life. I do not believe, nor do a considerable number of other people and groups, that protecting the civil rights of a psychiatric patient will in any way contribute to the throwing away of life. I sympathize deeply with those who have lost a family member through suicide. I sympathize particularly because I too have lost a member of my family through suicide and so I have an understanding of what an unbearable pain and anguish that can be to a family.

We do not always know whether a timely intervention is going to deliver the effect we hope it will deliver, but we do know and we must insist on the right of the individual to be autonomous and to be a partner in whatever treatment that individual and the medical profession and the parts thereof jointly decide on. There is some evidence, regrettably not enough, to suggest that treatment that is administered against the will of a person is not very effective treatment. That is the logical conclusion one might arrive at.

Of course, some will say, "What if a person is in no position to make appropriate decisions about his life?" That kind of question gets handled under the competency heading. If it is the view of the attending physicians that someone is not competent to make decisions about his treatment and is unable to understand the nature of his illness or the prognosis which would attach to the illness under specific types of conditions, then we must rely on a process, and it must be a due process, to decide the question of competency.

Once that question is decided, there are opportunities for treatment to be ordered, except in the case where the substitute decision-maker says that a particular treatment should be refused. I would also advance that very strongly as an appropriate response by a substitute decision-maker and one which should be not only understood but also supported.

There are some sections in Bill 190 which deal progressively with the question of how we pick substitute decision-makers, but I would put it to the Legislature, and particularly to the Minister of Health, that assuming he were competent and wanted to direct his decision-maker to refuse a particular kind of treatment in the future, such as electroconvulsive therapy or a massive drug therapy of a particular kind, his wish, expressed at the time he was competent and then advanced to the attending physician through a substitute decision-maker at the time he becomes incompetent, if he should be so unfortunate, should also be respected and should not be overturned by any process or by any quasi-judicial tribunal.

Finally, let me say that appropriate treatment has some subjective qualities to it; it must have some subjective qualities to it. Who is it in society who we believe should be the one who decides what is appropriate treatment? Should it be the physician; should it be the patient; should it be the substitute decision-maker?

In the end, I feel very strongly that these amendments, in the main, are not about care and are not about treatment; they are about power. In terms of the doctor-patient relationship, we have to be particularly vigilant to ensure that the patient has access to the power the patient needs. I think that is what the absolute right to refuse is about, and that is why I feel strongly that the amendments suggested by the Minister of Health are inappropriate.

I do look forward to the hearings. The minister may be surprised to learn how many sectors of the health profession agree with my position, including the psychologists, the social workers and, indeed, some medical doctors. A large group of civil rights activists and mental health professionals will want to come to the committee and say just that.

I also would welcome, as I know he will, participation by people who feel otherwise, because we do need to sort out these issues so that we can create a circumstance, both a legislative framework and a care program, that will best meet the needs of the people of Ontario for good health in a context of strong civil liberty.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to a couple of those comments, I want to indicate quite clearly that I do not expect unanimous presentations on the part of the people who are involved in the system. In fact, the committee stage is there so we can have a very thorough airing indeed of the issues. I agree with the honourable gentleman that it needs to be done. I do not think a thorough debate on these issues was done when the amendment to Bill 7 was passed. The gentleman might agree with me, appropriately, that this type of committee is very much required so that we can set our minds specifically to this item.

I want to indicate a couple of things. First, the legislation does provide an expanded definition of competency, and we may want to talk a little about the relevance or at least the extent of that definition in committee, but at least it is already provided in the amendment.

I might also indicate that we do not have a situation where involuntary patients refuse treatments as a rare item. There are many such deliberations being held. We understand that at our 12 boards we are doing at least one of these per week per board, so there are a number being considered in the 12 boards we currently have.

The other item is that it seems to me we have gone a little bit further as well in the sense that we have provided in the amendment, inadvertently, the ability of a relative of an involuntary incompetent patient to refuse absolutely, even in the situation where a patient, if competent, might very well choose to receive treatment.

There are a number of those items which we will be able to deal with during committee time in a very thorough manner. I am looking forward to those discussions so that the Legislative Assembly can turn its collective mind to precisely providing the good health care that the people of the province require.

Mr. Reville: In reply, I am interested to hear the minister say that each of the 12 boards does a treatment order each week. It was not information I was able to get, and I hope this information will be available to the committee so that in fact we can understand the scope of the problem.

I certainly think his remarks are totally credible. My problem was that I was unable to get any statistics from the review board, and what I got was anecdotal information from a couple of chairmen, who did indeed indicate that treatment orders were a very small portion of their business, between five and seven per cent, which was how I arrived at my numbers. I agree that in some jurisdictions the request for treatment orders may indeed be larger.

The other issue is that it is possible that in some institutions the psychiatrists decline to apply for treatment orders for some reason or another, and of course we will have to get evidence on that score to discover why that might be.

I appreciate the minister indicating he did not believe that the input to the committee would be totally unanimous; I am sure that is correct. I again look forward to this debate taking place, and I would like to point out that in fact in a large number of jurisdictions, and for many years in our jurisdiction, this debate has been going on, perhaps not at a recent committee, and many jurisdictions have mental health legislation that is very similar to that generated by Bill 7.

Mr. Henderson: I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill 190, the Mental Health Amendment Act, 1987. I have much to say and so very little time that I am therefore going to speak more quickly than I would otherwise wish to do.

I want to say that I am no stranger to these matters. I have a long-standing interest as a practitioner in mental health legislation, and during my time in public health I learned something of the practice of other jurisdictions as well. When I was in Barrie, I was in charge of the hospital's clinical unit and responsible for the hospital's

interpretation of mental health legislation and for monitoring compliance with it hospital-wide.

As a member of the council of the Ontario Psychiatric Association, I participated in discussion, and sometimes debate, about mental health legislation. Over the years, I have frequently written to successive Ministers of Health setting forth what I feel to be a point of view on behalf of patients with psychological disorders.

A few months ago we passed an amendment in this House posed by the member for Ottawa Centre that would have made treating competent involuntary patients virtually impossible without their consent and incompetent involuntary patients without their next of kin's consent. There is a part of my nature, and I would call it the part that I identify with my humanist and civil libertarian side, that applauded that amendment. Personally, I have usually resorted to considerable mental and legalistic gymnastics to avoid certifying patients. Especially I have loathed having to treat patients who did not wish treatment.

Like many physicians, I would die a little death whenever circumstances required that I do that.

It is foreign to my whole nature as a human being and to my ethic of compassion and caring as a physician to impose help on people who do not wish it. What mental health care is all about, in my view, is helping people grow. It is not easy to see how one can best help people grow if one begins by stripping them of liberties and inflicting treatment as though it were a punishment imposed for evildoing.

Good mental health care rests upon the idea of a therapeutic alliance wherein a clinician and a patient contract, work together and collaborate with each other to help an individual understand the nature and meaning of his or her symptoms, gain a greater sense of being in the driver's seat of his or her own life and gather insight about what makes him or her the kind of person he or she is.

I am speaking of a collaborative attitude. Attitudes are not luxuries in mental health care; they are central ingredients of the treatment process. A therapeutic alliance is, above all, an alliance. An alliance is not something that can be imposed on one individual by another.

All of these points, which I have practised, written and taught young doctors about, presume a patient is able to appreciate at least in a general way the nature of his or her mental processes and able to make a realistic assessment of his or her state of mental health. A patient who cannot appreciate that a physician is there to be helpful to him or who is tormented by paranoid delusions or equally difficult naïve idealizations poses a serious dilemma in this process of striving for a therapeutic alliance.

I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that the physician is not colluding, presumably unconsciously, in the patient's need for such paranoid or idealizing attitudes. I assume, as presumably the legislation should assume, a competent and well-intended physician, just as we assume in drafting legislation a patient who is genuinely suffering and genuinely reaching to be helped by a professional in whom he is prepared to invest at least a certain trust and confidence.

These assumptions do not always apply, because physicians are not of equal excellence in what they bring to care-giving and patients are motivated by far more complicated things than simply a wish to be helped. We make those assumptions in the drafting of legislation because we want to assume good faith on both sides of the therapeutic contract.

I outline these points of mindset and attitude because they are critically important in mental health care and because we legislators and most citizens often take them for granted. We ought not to take them for granted, because mindset and attitude dovetail with various parts of the therapeutic process and therapeutic environment. We legislators sometimes tinker with that environment to the potential serious detriment, ultimately, of patients.

I mention these points also because I want to stress that I am much, though not entirely, in sympathy with the amendment we passed some months ago put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre.

I might say that I especially find, as a physician, the treatment known as electroconvulsive therapy or shock treatment to be repugnant. I have administered that treatment rarely and not for the past 15 years. I doubt I will ever administer it again, certainly not if I can help it. Aside from the way I feel about it, I am troubled by the lack of information about how it works. As a practitioner as well as a legislator, I am a pragmatist and I am quite prepared to reach when I have to for whatever succeeds. After half a century of use and thousands of excellent research and other studies, we are little, if any, closer to a definitive understanding of the mechanism of action of ECT.

However, as a medical practitioner, I have had to bend all these convictions, sentiments and reservations a little to the evidence I have seen. I have seen men and women whose lives have been wrecked for months, whose perceptions and experiences are smashed and maimed beyond recognition, and have been for months, return to a state of apparent normalcy and peace of mind in the course of a day or two as a result of three or four ECT treatments.

I have seen patients in catatonic stupor, frozen and immobile, unresponsive, uncommunicative, totally neglecting their nutritional and other physical and emotional needs to a point of physical illness, and sometimes near death, restored to a state of relative normalcy in a day or two, after weeks or months of apparent total detachment from reality and, by all accounts, intense suffering.

I might add that what we all saw in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest bears no resemblance to how ECT is administered in a modern mental health facility. Movies are for entertainment; realities are something different. Whether or not the patient consented to treatment did not, in my experience, seem to influence its dramatic helpfulness. I believe certain treatments work as well regardless of whether consent is given. Incidentally, the treatment is always given under anaesthetic.

In examining this issue of the place of ECT, I speak as one reluctantly persuaded by the evidence, not as one who is disposed to like the nature of the treatment, because I definitely do not. Mental health professionals worry that they will have patients in their facilities who are certifiably involuntary and cannot be discharged but who refuse treatment and cannot be helped. The professionals worry about becoming custodians or even glorified jailers.

In rebuttal, it is often said that patients who are involuntary are therefore necessarily incompetent, so we need not worry about having a situation wherein competent involuntary patients need to be treated against their will. One of the suggestions I will make presently is that we redefine mental competence, as indeed this legislation attempts to do, to make that assumption more like reality. At the moment, in my opinion, it is not. Patients can easily be involuntary and competent both.

For example, a man or a woman who sinks into a psychotic depression on the anniversary of a parent's death and insists on spending every hour of every waking day kneeling at the parent's gravestone is neglecting himself or herself in a way that brings great anguish to those who love and care about that patient and works grievous injury to the patient's own mental health. Yet the patient may be in no threat of imminent or serious physical impairment, may not be hospitalizable as an involuntary patient or may be so only with great difficulty and with some considerable stretching of the criteria.

That patient may be quite mentally competent by traditional criteria of what constitutes mental competence.

Such an individual can be very difficult to treat, and often enough patients in such categories have had to be allowed to continue to suffer and to inflict great suffering on their families because their caretakers could not feel, or could not feel with any confidence, authorized to offer simple, safe treatment almost certain to be effective.

I recall another example when I was involved personally in the hospitalization of an emaciated academic who had been living in reclusive filth and squalor and near total self-neglect since he developed a serious mental illness in his 30s. The criteria for certification had just been changed from threat of serious bodily harm to threat of imminent and serious physical impairment in the then revision of the Mental Health Act. This patient really did not meet those new criteria, but his doctors, of whom I was one, bent the law because to fail to do so would have been cruel.

Our mental health professionals should not be placed in that kind of situation, but it happens often. I speak from experience in saying these situations are not rare. They are familiar occurrences in the experience of every practising physician who deals with patients with psychological disorders in a hospital setting.

Some patients whose lives and families are wrecked by mental illness are less at risk of imminent and serious bodily harm than those of us who take Highway 401 or the Gardiner Expressway to work. Presumably they are less mentally healthy, but I suppose