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

December 11, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L079 - Thu 11 Dec 1986 / Jeu 11 déc 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN FOOD PRODUCTS

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

AFTERNOON SITTING

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

SUNDAY RACING

SANTA LUCIA DAY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES

APPLE PRODUCTION

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL GRANT

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

IDEA CORP.

TRITIUM REMOVAL

IDEA CORP.

PREMIER'S REMARK

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

IDEA CORP.

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

COURTHOUSE

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

SUNDAY RACING

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN FOOD PRODUCTS

Mr. G. I. Miller moved resolution 70:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a pleasure on a Thursday morning before Christmas to have the opportunity of debating this resolution, which I feel very strongly will support the agricultural industry in Ontario. It should help to strengthen it.

In opening, I might indicate that the apples we have put on the desks this morning are Empire apples. These are new apples that have been developed over the past years at Guelph. I believe they are named after the state of New York. They were grown at Vittoria, just east of Simcoe, which I feel is the Garden of Eden of Ontario. They were grown on the farm of Tom Haskett and his family. They were given to all members before Christmas as a reminder of the good things we grow in Ontario.

I rise today in favour of the resolution, which I believe is of great importance to everyone in this House, in this province and in Canada.

Every person on this earth needs three things to survive: air to breathe, water to drink and food for nourishment. I do not know whom you want to thank for the air or the water, but I feel compelled to thank the farmer for our food. We can show our gratitude to the farmers of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and all provinces of Canada. As true Canadians, we cannot just zero in only on Ontario and its food production. We have to think of Canada as a whole. Under the leadership of our new government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made it very clear that we want a united Canada. Therefore, when we speak of food products, we speak on the broad base of Canada as a whole.

The purpose behind this resolution is that Canadian farmers deserve our support. They deserve the chance to compete and they deserve the chance to prosper as other segments of our society have prospered, but most of all they deserve to have a fighting chance to survive. I do not have to tell the members of this House about the many problems facing farmers in this country; many of us are farmers ourselves. The men and women who produce our food have been forced to watch helplessly as the bottom drops out of their income, their equity and their confidence.

The government, or more specifically the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, is doing its part to give the farmers of this province a fighting chance, but that is not enough. This resolution is not asking the government to put more money into its agricultural budget. This resolution is asking that we, as individual elected members of this Legislature, do what we can to put more money into our farmers' pockets.

Nine years ago the Ministry of Agriculture and Food developed a consumer marketing program designed to achieve maximum penetration of the Ontario market by Ontario-produced fresh and processed agricultural food products. This program was developed to counteract the falling market share of Ontario foods, the increase in imports and the constant surplus stock situation at the end of the crop year.

Ontario is the largest producer of agricultural foods in Canada and our farmers account for almost 30 per cent of Canadian agricultural food production. This province's food and beverage industry is valued at $14 billion a year. The Foodland Ontario program has proved to be a successful vehicle for expanding public awareness of Ontario's food products.

A survey taken last year shows that two thirds of all grocery shoppers are aware of the advertising of Ontario food products, 83 per cent of grocery shoppers recognize the Foodland Ontario symbol and 80 per cent of consumers consider the Foodland Ontario program a worthwhile effort.

On July 31, 1986, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) unveiled a $1.7-million advertising program designed to accentuate the great taste of Ontario's fruits and vegetables. The essence of this campaign is captured by the new slogan, "Ontario, there's no taste like home."

Our new slogan rings true. The taste of our fresh and processed products is unsurpassed. As the minister indicated, our peaches are juicier and sweeter-tasting than imports, our apples are unsurpassed for eating enjoyment and our tomatoes are rich with sweet and good tomato taste. Together with an increase of $1 million in the budget for other non-advertising activities of Foodland Ontario announced today, this campaign represents an important new thrust in the marketing of fresh and processed Ontario products.

This resolution will be supportive of that and is an extension to that. The minister said it best when he said, "We want to use as many tools as possible to increase the consumption in this province of Ontario-produced fresh and processed products."

The federal government is doing its part to increase the awareness of and the use of Canadian food products as well. A think Canadian campaign for the retail food sector began in October in 4,000 supermarkets across the country. This campaign is designed to encourage Canadian food shoppers to buy Canadian food products. It is the kind of co-operation between governments that I believe is essential if we are to continue to help farmers help themselves.

10:10

The question we all must ask ourselves is, how do we further encourage the increased use of Canadian food products by Ontario consumers? I think there are many advantages, both to the farmer and to the consumer. In 1985, this province purchased $2.9 billion worth of food products from other countries, and in that same year Ontario exported $1.8-billion worth of food products. That is a deficit of $1.1 billion. That is an area I would like to see our farmers compete in, to reduce that deficit and put themselves in a positive exporting position. I feel that can be achieved with proper co-operation between the ministers of agriculture at the provincial and federal levels.

I think it is a crime that in the same year Ontario exported $1.8-billion worth of food products and in a province that produces $5 billion worth of food products every year, we find ourselves with a $1 billion trade deficit. This deficit amounts to more than $3,000 for every person living on a farm in Ontario. It is easy to see how buying the foods produced here can translate into enormous benefits for the farmers who grow here.

In 1985, Ontario imported $24 million worth of apples; 53 per cent of those apples entered the province during our domestic growing season. In 1985, we imported $15 million worth of strawberries, 26 per cent of those during our growing season. We imported almost $8 million worth of peaches; more than $1 million worth of those peaches came to Ontario during our growing season.

The story is much the same when we look at vegetable imports during the 1985 growing season: $2 million worth of asparagus; $6 million worth of lettuce; $4 million worth of potatoes; $3 million worth of carrots; $12 million worth of onions; almost $4 million worth of tomatoes; and well over $1 million worth of cabbage. These products were imported into Ontario during their respective growing seasons. That is when our products are at their prime and when we should be given the opportunity of taking advantage of these markets. Again, we have to stress that quality is important.

We should be stressing markets so that we have access to those markets. Again, I hope this resolution can put on some emphasis and get some results as far as bringing the farmer and the end user together is concerned.

The examples I have just mentioned total almost $50 million. That money is going somewhere other than into the pockets of the farmers of Ontario. As members of this Legislature, we must not allow ourselves to be satisfied with the situation as it now stands. It has been estimated that the consumers of Ontario spend about $200 million a week on food. If we could increase the amount they spend on Canadian food products by even one per cent, it would mean another $2 million a week back into the farm economy.

Here is an indication of how important a role the farmer plays. If he can get the dollars, it means money for people in urban communities. Farmers buy products. They need farm equipment and all the essentials of life that city folks do. If they have the money, they will certainly make it go around to help the economy overall.

The purpose of this resolution is to encourage the government to increase our use of Canadian food products. It is our obligation to take the lead in this effort. The government of Ontario is in a position to help farmers help themselves. Every ministry, every government agency, every publicly funded institution must be encouraged to make Canadian food products a priority in their dining rooms, in their cafeterias and at every event where food is being served.

The dining room here at Queen's Park would be a fine example of using Canadian products, and it would be a step forward to specialize when our fresh vegetables are in season. Our asparagus is one of the first vegetables that comes on the market. I know the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has brought in asparagus himself for the dining room so we could have that special taste fresh from the field.

That should be done automatically. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has requirements to develop marketing, and I know he would be willing to co-operate with the dining room. When they come on stream, there is nothing better than our Ontario fresh-grown strawberries. They should be made available. We also have our beef products, which play an important role and could be focused on. Our pork, our chickens, and our fish from the Great Lakes could be utilized on special occasions.

I bring to the attention of all members of this Legislature, representing every part of Ontario, that every consumer in Ontario is represented here in the Legislature. We should play a very important role in promoting our own farm products and our agricultural industry. The farmers of this province deserve no less. Each and every one of us must keep in mind that every dollar spent on Canadian products is another dollar in a Canadian farmer's pocket. I am positive that if every government function involving food served nothing but Canadian food products, it would prove to be a giant step on the road back for Canadian farmers.

I am personally going to write to every minister urging further consideration of this matter and I ask every member in this House to give serious thought to doing the same. As a government, we have done a great deal to help the farmers of this province. At the same time, we must be constantly on the lookout for ways in which, as members of this provincial parliament, we can further help our farmers.

I do not think for a moment that by adopting the sentiments contained in this resolution we are going to turn the farm economy around. I am sure we will not. This resolution does not ask for much. It asks us to remember the farmer when we buy our food; it asks us to give our farmers a reasonable chance. In short, it asks us to do what we can do and nothing else. I believe that with the support of all members of this Legislature it could be a very important resolution.

I hope all sides, all parties, all members support it, so that we can encourage and strengthen our farm industry and reduce our deficit of $1.1 billion of imported food products and we can be, if the quality is right, an exporting province rather than an importing one. It will be interesting to see, as we go on year after year, what progress we are making. We should set a goal, a benchmark--it could be the benchmark that we have today, the $1.1-billion deficit--to see if we cannot reduce the deficit and become an exporting province. I think that can be achieved.

Quality is the important thing. The new technology to provide storage facilities is important because the consumer wants quality. We cannot emphasize too much that we all want quality, and I think working together it can be achieved.

I would like to reserve the remainder of my time to wrap up after the debate is completed.

Mr. Sheppard: It is a pleasure for me to be addressing the House today on the resolution proposed by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). I appreciate the apple the member has delivered to each member in the House today. I might mention that we have good apples in the great riding of Northumberland, as well as peas and corn. We have more than 100 growers who grow peas and corn in the great riding of Northumberland.

10:20

The member proposed that the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions. This is a realistic resolution and, quite frankly, I am surprised it was not proposed earlier. Promoting and using Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food should come naturally to all of us here.

It is important, however, that the resolution not be limited to government agencies and institutions. It should encompass further promotion of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods all across Ontario. We are all aware of the promotion program, Foodland Ontario. The program's general mandate or objective is to stress to the consumer the nutritional value and variety of Ontario foods and the economic benefits both to the consumer and the province as a whole. Basically, the program is to help increase purchase by Ontario consumers of Ontario-produced fresh and processed agricultural products.

Further, the program provides information to the consumer on food purchasing, preparation and storage, which will enable him or her to obtain the best value in Ontario foods.

Since the inception of this program in 1977, studies have indicated high awareness of the symbol as an identifier of Ontario food products. The recall of the slogan, "Good things grow in Ontario," is also extremely high, about 90 per cent. We can therefore conclude from these studies that the consumer is more aware of the wide variety of food products grown in Ontario. The potential domestic market in this province is tremendous. Foodland Ontario was able to take advantage of that potential by expanding domestic markets and educating the consumer about the benefits of buying Ontario-grown products.

Unfortunately, however, the Foodland Ontario symbol and the slogan, "Good things grow in Ontario," have basically been associated with fresh fruits, vegetables, dairy products and meats. The Foodland Ontario symbol has little influence on choices among canned and packaged products such as canned apple juice, tomatoes and peaches and packaged meats such as bacon. In the case of both packaged and canned products, it appears that brand names continue to overshadow the consideration of buying domestically. This is definitely an area that needs further consideration by the government to fulfil this resolution to its maximum potential.

Another important aspect of the Foodland Ontario program is the various trade missions that assist Ontario in expanding its export market of agricultural and food products. Ontario's international trade missions have been very successful in the past, not only to the United States and the United Kingdom, but to other countries and regions such as Japan, Europe and the Caribbean as well. As I mentioned earlier, this is a positive resolution. I agree that the government could be doing more to promote and encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods.

If ministries are not already following this practice, they should be doing so. To begin with, without exception, ministries should be serving Canadian foods and beverages at functions and meetings. Ads promoting Ontario foods should be included in ministry newsletters and other government publications such as Topical and Job Mart.

Some Ministry of Correctional Services institutions produce and process their own foods. A co-operative effort to pursue this alternative is definitely a means by which the government could regulate and control the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed foods in government institutions.

The Ministry of Government Services could stimulate the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed foods in government building cafeterias. At present, this service is contracted out to private companies that are not obligated to buy and sell only Canadian products.

I will emphasize again, however, that promoting the use of Canadian food products by ministries, government agencies and institutions is only a small part. We must continue to broaden the Foodland Ontario campaign through television, radio, newspapers and magazines to make consumers even more aware of the high quality of Ontario-grown food available year-round.

As I said earlier, maybe a special campaign could be launched to promote not only fresh products but also Canadian canned, frozen and packaged foods. Consumers want to buy from their own province and will do so if they are aware of the products.

We must also continue to promote the concept of fewer imports and more exports. Programs such as the export promotion program and the export sales aid program provided added incentives for Ontario companies to develop overseas markets. The shared-cost program provided incentives to commodity groups. As I mentioned earlier, trade missions have resulted in an increased awareness among Far East buyers of a wide range of Ontario agriculture and food products.

Continued support of the BILD food processing assistance program is required to provide an efficient food processing sector in Ontario. The main objective here is to increase the value added processing of Ontario agricultural products so that we may replace imports and create exports expansion, increased agricultural production in Ontario and, last but not least, jobs for the people in this province.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of the resolution this morning. I compliment the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for bringing it forward. As he said, this resolution will not turn around the farm economy in Ontario, but at least it allows us to discuss the perspective of what is happening in agriculture in Ontario and right across Canada.

The resolution is a symbol of the lack of commitment we have had to our agricultural community and the continuous decline of agriculture in Ontario over the past century. During the course of that century, the governments in this province have paid lip service on a regular, almost daily basis to the agricultural community in this province and--I do not fully understand why--have largely maintained the support of that community, in electoral terms at least.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk is correct to point out that we have a $1.1-billion deficit in agricultural products in Ontario. For any province in Canada, let alone Ontario, to be a net importer of agricultural products is a disgrace.

This resolution, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and the previous speaker have suggested, will not solve the problems in the farm economy, but with support for this kind of resolution we can focus some of the commitment that is ultimately going to be necessary to start to turn around the farm economy.

The previous speaker mentioned that the problems in the agricultural community in Ontario are far bigger than this resolution addresses. We all know that. It is a basic commitment to an economic structure that ultimately has to be addressed. That is what this resolution does not address. I believe the resolution is put forward as a symbol of the problem that exists, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk said, but it does not address the problem of the basic economy in the agricultural community.

We must have some major commitment coming forth in this country, not a commitment to patchwork, as we have seen for the past 20 years, not a commitment to staving off foreclosures, a commitment to this and a commitment to that, to putting out fires as the fires arise in the agricultural community, but a commitment to building an agricultural economy that is viable in Ontario. It is all part of the other economic discussions that are going on in Ontario and in Canada.

10:30

It is not good enough for us to have resolutions such as this, although we support them, or to have the kind of piecemeal programs the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been announcing over the course of the last year, one at a time. After each program, he assesses how much of the fire he has managed to put out, how much remains to be dealt with, how many farmers we are going to let go down the drain and how many we can save.

We are talking about an economy in the same way we talk about free trade, and that is unfortunate. I recall when the free trade issue was first raised some two years ago by the Mulroney government in Ottawa, a government that is supposed to be committed to the agricultural community in Canada. I have not yet once heard Mulroney, Michael Wilson or Pat Carney talk about the effect an overall, universal free trade package will have on the agricultural community in Canada. I have heard them respond to some of the trade union concerns about jobs. I have heard them attempt to respond to some of the other concerns about cultural and sovereignty questions in Canada.

A number of times during the free trade debate I recall the agricultural organizations in this country, specifically those in this province, saying repeatedly that free trade will destroy the family farm. I believe that to be true, but we are not addressing that issue here as we should be. It is certainly not reflected in the statements the Premier has made about free trade negotiations. He has not been the most supportive Premier in terms of the one-package free trade approach Mulroney has taken; on the other hand, he has not opposed it either.

This government has not come forward in strong, demanding terms to protect the agricultural community in those negotiations. That has to be part of it. It cannot be a token resolution here, a token program there and the implementation of a temporary program over here to stave off some foreclosures in 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 or 1987. Either there should be a commitment to building an economic base for the agricultural community or the government should let it go.

It is no different from discussing any other industry in the economy of Canada. Either you decide it is a viable industry you want to keep and are prepared to make the commitment to build the economic base for that industry or you let it go to die.

As long as we are saying the agricultural industry should survive, there is no point in our standing in this House and talking about the problems in agriculture and passing resolutions such as this, although we have to support them, if we are not prepared to go the five steps beyond that in our relationships with the other provinces and the federal government. We must negotiate and fight for the development of an economy for agriculture that will allow it ultimately to survive without the continual need for patchwork programs.

There is no point to it if we cannot get beyond having token resolutions that say ministries, crown agencies and provincially funded institutions should buy Ontario food because we have a problem; if we cannot get beyond saying, as the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) said, that we have to continue to support the advertising campaign; and if we cannot get beyond having to listen to the announcements from the Minister of Agriculture and Food, all of which are reflections of the problem we are failing to deal with, all of which are made necessary by our failure to deal with the problem in real terms

The other two parties in this House, because they largely represent the agricultural communities in this province, like to take unto themselves the claim that they represent the farmers. It is difficult to deny that when a farmer stands up in the House today and moves this resolution and the first speaker for the official opposition is a farmer as well. I remind members it was this party, which at that time did not have any farmers at all, that started raising the issue in the mid-1970s of the disappearing agricultural land in this province.

We still have not come to terms with that issue. It is still out there. Agricultural land is still going out of production every day of every week of every month of every year that passes, and we are doing nothing in concrete terms to address that problem. We are doing patchwork things by trying to prevent farmer A or farmer X from going under in week three or week seven, but we are not addressing the problem of why it is happening.

Until we are prepared to come to terms with that, although we have to support resolutions like this, they will mean less and less each time we deal with them in terms of supporting the agricultural community and getting at what the resolutions express, which is this emotional support we continually give to the survival of the agricultural community in Ontario.

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

Mr. McKessock: It is a pleasure for me also to rise in favour of the resolution of my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions."

By promoting the use of Canadian food products in our ministries, we are helping to increase consumer awareness of commodities produced here at home. We are also taking the lead and encouraging consumers to choose domestic products when and where possible. Encouraging consumers to buy home-grown products has a spinoff effect that will be felt throughout the economy.

First, buying locally grown produce will help ease the burden of imports from the United States and other countries, which puts so much pressure on our farmers. Farming in Canada is heavily tied to the world economy, and competition for agricultural commodities is high. Our farmers are in a position where they have to try to market their products against the highly subsidized imports of the US and the European Community.

The problem is that both the US and the European Community receive vast subsidies on their farm products and can afford to sell them on the Canadian market at well below the cost of production. If Ontario farmers were allowed to compete, let us say on their knowledge and good practice of farming, they could compete without any trouble, but it is hard to compete against the treasuries of other countries.

Encouraging all Canadians to buy fresh Canadian produce and foods that have been processed here at home will help our farmers and the producers to maintain their market share. If we lose too many farmers, we may become dependent on imports in this country. We should never let ourselves get into that position. If we ensure that our agricultural industry is kept strong, we will not have to rely on imports. We should always keep ourselves in a position of being able to feed ourselves.

This resolution is not just for farmers. In the longer term, it will also help create jobs and keep food dollars within the economy. When I talk about it creating jobs, we know that one out of five jobs in Canada is related to the agricultural and food processing industries. Many jobs are created in food processing, packaging and sales of agricultural products. If we lose our share in the Canadian market for agricultural products, then we also lose the jobs that go along with it. This resolution is very important not only for farmers but also for everyone in Canada, to help keep our economy strong and to keep our jobs in the agricultural sector at a high level.

10:40

Canadians can also choose to buy substitute products. This favours our producers. We can drink apple juice in the morning instead of orange juice. As has been pointed out, we have nice apples on our desks this morning, given to us by the member who introduced this resolution. It is an indication of the good products grown in this country. We have to watch that we do not choose imports when we go to the food stores to buy products. We should make it a habit to ask the manager or whomever is selling the product where this product comes from. Where are these apples grown? If the apples are from outside Canada, we should ask whether he has any Canadian products.

There are good reasons for that besides economy. The quality of our produce in Canada is outstanding. Freshness is something on which we have a monopoly, because it is hard to bring in products from outside this country and keep them fresh. Freshness is of great importance. Freshness and taste go together. We feel the products we develop and produce in Canada are the tastiest and the freshest.

It does not require any legislation to continue to promote a buy Canadian philosophy. It is something each and every one of us can undertake. Buying Canadian products is the simplest and most direct way we can ensure that Canadian products receive their market share and put new life into our agricultural sector.

I feel Ontario has already taken large steps in this direction. After all, Ontario is Canada's largest producer of agricultural food products and accounts for almost 30 per cent of the total Canadian agricultural food production. The potential domestic market in Ontario is very high. Programs such as Foodland Ontario, which recently got a budget increase of $1 million, take advantage of that potential by expanding domestic markets and educating the consumer about the benefits of buying Ontario-grown products.

These campaigns stress the nutritional value and variety of Ontario foods and the economic benefit to consumers and the province as a whole which results when they buy domestically produced food.

I feel it is important that we continue to set an example and create opportunities to help competitive Canadian food products maintain their rightful place in the marketplace.

The great number of products we have in Canada was mentioned, but some of them are being squeezed pretty hard by imports. Fish was mentioned. We have a large importation of fish into this country; the same is true of lamb. We have the ability to produce all the fish and lamb we need in this country and of course all the other agricultural products. But we must have a price on that product capable of paying the farmer his cost plus a reasonable profit. One way the consumer can help bring that about is to make sure he or she buys Canadian products.

When we are buying fish or lamb we should also ask, "Where is this product produced?" If it is not a Canadian product we should ask where we can get such a product.

I was travelling on Air Canada a while back. I noticed they served wines on the plane, but they did not ask whether you wanted a Canadian wine; they asked whether you wanted French or German wine. When cases such as this come up, passengers should always request, "Do you have a Canadian product?" They should make sure the opportunity is there.

Often the people who are serving these products do not know what the product is, or if they know they are following directions from the owner. We should write Air Canada, A & P, Loblaws or whoever is promoting imported foods and try to get across to them that we want a good display of Canadian foods on the shelves and the opportunity to buy them.

By buying more Canadian products we are stimulating the growing, producing, processing, distribution and retailing sectors of our economy. We are also helping to create and maintain jobs.

In conclusion, taking steps that encourage the use of Canadian products makes good sense. It is a non-tariff barrier to imported foods to our country that is legal and beneficial to our economy. It is a program in which everyone can take part and do his share to help maintain and strengthen this great country of Canada.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise to support the resolution presented by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government further encourage the use of Canadian-grown and Canadian-processed food products by all ministries, government agencies and provincially funded institutions." I repeat that for the third time this morning, but we should emphasize to the government and its agencies that it should be using Canadian-grown produce and foods.

I also thank the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for the apple. I am sure my colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) will eat most of those distributed in his row, since he loves apples.

I have the honour to represent a rural riding, as does the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. It is good common sense to encourage the agencies and institutions that are funded by the government to use Canadian-grown food and products from that food.

Several years ago, the then Minister of Correctional Services, Frank Drea, requested that the institutions under his ministry give his friendly boarders the benefit of Canadian-grown produce. He served them tomato juice, grape juice and vegetable juice instead of imported orange and grapefruit juice. It makes a lot of sense. There is as much nourishment in our fruit and vegetables as there is in citrus fruits from the south. If medical people feel citrus fruit is required on occasion, they can use it, but not every day. In my opinion, it is just as healthy if not healthier to use our food, because we know how it is treated.

Hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, day care centres, schools and universities all receive government funding and assistance. There is no reason they could not follow the proposal of this resolution and use Canadian fruits and vegetables instead of imported produce.

The same example could be followed in the use of fish, poultry, meat and other vegetables. We grow excellent potatoes in the Shelburne area of Dufferin county. As the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) knows, they are some of the best potatoes in Ontario and Canada. There is no reason to import Idaho potatoes. Excellent lamb is raised in Ontario. We do not have to serve imported New Zealand lamb in these government institutions. If the government sets an example and does not serve imported food in institutions, the people themselves may do the same in their own homes.

We should go further than this resolution. We should educate our citizens, especially our children, about the benefits of eating good-quality Canadian food. Many imported fruits and vegetables are grown in conditions that are not acceptable in Ontario and Canada. Chemicals, pesticides and herbicides that are not licensed to be used in this country are used in other countries.

10:50

As one example, in my riding, our government and the Department of National Health and Welfare say we cannot use certain chemicals for red wheat, which goes into cereal, and many fruits are not allowed to be sprayed with certain chemicals, yet we import them from other countries. They use the spray in these other countries. The other people are using it without knowing.

While we are trying to protect our people by saying we cannot use the chemicals, we are allowing them to be imported into the country and there is no control on them. It does not make sense. What we need is a pure food act. Either they are not acceptable in any form or they are acceptable.

I understand Florida welcomes tourists, but it does not welcome produce from outside the state. The Florida government has an economic incentive to encourage residents to use Florida produce.

These are examples of states and other countries that will not allow our food to come in, and yet they send us many million of dollars worth of food.

I remember many years ago--12 or 15 years anyway--I was travelling with my family, and we were going from Canada into the US by way of Duluth. The border patrol searched the car, and the only thing they were concerned about was citrus fruit. We had some oranges in our cooler, and they refused to allow the oranges to cross into the country. Everything else was okay, but not the oranges, not the fruits or vegetables. Their concern was contamination or disease, but they also feel they are protecting their markets.

As I have mentioned, for health reasons alone it is better to eat Canadian fruit and vegetables. It has always been my contention that the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who was here earlier this morning--I hope the member for Haldimand-Norfolk will speak to him later should work very closely with the Minister of Agriculture and Food to develop better programs to educate our young people to the many reasons they should be using Canadian and Ontario food.

As I mentioned, health is one very important reason, but there are others as well. Economic benefits would be high on the list. Many of the people in the city are not knowledgeable about the dramatic economic impact in rural Ontario today--the declining markets and the inability of many farmers to meet their financial needs because they think only of buying what appears to be cheapest. There are very few countries that at some point in the calendar year cannot produce something and ship it into Canada for less money.

If we are concerned only about the cost and nothing else, our farmers will not be in existence for many years, and then we will have no choice but to pay the import price. At that time they can set the price at whatever they desire and we will be forced to pay it. If more people realized how it impacts on our farmers, they would be more interested in buying Canadian and Ontario food and helping to preserve the farmers.

The Americans, who brought out the US farm bill, have poured many billions of dollars into their farm economy. Our governments are not doing the same thing. The American consumers are indirectly supporting the farmers through the US farm bill. Our consumers should consider that. It is a direct subsidy, yet we do not seem to appreciate the impact it is having on our farming population.

I would like to close by giving one example of a concern I have about the education process and maybe the lack of it. One of the fruit farmers in my riding told me of an experience he had this past spring. A teacher brought a group of young students out to look at his orchards. One of the things he asked the fruit grower was to show the students the poison they spray on the apples. That is an example of some of the problems we have. If those young people think there is poison on apples, they will not be so inclined to eat the apples the member has presented to us this morning.

The government has a responsibility to make sure this type of misleading information is not spread. We have a very controlled program in Ontario and in Canada to make sure the pesticides and chemicals that are used are safe for human consumption and far safer than any of the countries we import from. That message should be given to the public and especially to our young people in the school system.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I thank all members in the House who participated in the debate on the resolution this morning. The member for Northumberland indicated they grow good apples and vegetables down there. We are well aware of that and appreciate that. There are many areas in Ontario that produce excellent fruit. I know the member for Grey put apples from his area on the desks only a few weeks ago.

We know the resolution is not the answer to all the problems in the agricultural industry, as the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) indicated. It is a small step and a benchmark we would like to achieve by getting a balance of trade in Ontario as far as the agricultural industry is concerned.

We would also like to establish an outlet here at the Legislature where our food might be bought or apples might be made available to all members. I know in our caucus we have apple juice available; I assume that is so on all sides of the House. We could increase that to include apples, grape juice and even peanuts.

I would like to give these to the leaders of our three parties, if I could have one of the pages deliver them to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). These are kernel peanuts. We have three peanut producers in Ontario. I am also sending some to the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), and the Premier, just to indicate that we do grow peanuts in Ontario. They could be available here in our little store where we could all have access to them.

At the domed stadium, which the province is putting so much money into, there is a market there for them, because anybody who goes to the ball game always buys a bag of peanuts. We could be using our own. If we are going to subsidize a facility such as that, agriculture should be able to play a role and get a return for our producers. Those areas are so important.

The other thing at this time of the year, Christmas, is that we have the people lining up at the soup kitchens because they do not have food available and we have to look for handouts from our society to help our fellow man. I am not against that, but it seems to me there must be excess food sitting around that could be provided to food banks so people do not have to go hungry or do not have to go begging. Something that bothers me more than anything else is to see somebody have to go cold, without shelter and without food. Those are three ingredients we should not have to contend with here in Ontario, because we have all the resources to work with to provide them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity of presenting this resolution, and I ask not only for the support but also for the help of all members of the Legislature in trying to achieve and accomplish what the resolution suggests.

The Deputy Speaker: In view of the fact that no peanuts were shared with other members of the Legislature, we certainly cannot let the member go further over his time limit.

Mr. G. I. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the members had been in agricultural estimates the other day they would have been aware that peanuts were available. You just have to be in the right place at the right time. They are available, and we would love to see all caucuses have them in their caucus rooms. I am sure the producers would appreciate that, and it would be something for the leaders to suggest.

11:00

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Turner moved resolution 69:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that there is no haemodialysis unit in any hospital between Toronto and Kingston and recognizing that people requiring dialysis must travel long distances several times weekly to receive this treatment, the Minister of Health should approve and facilitate the supplying of a satellite dialysis unit to a hospital in Peterborough.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Turner: I think I can say everything I have to say within the 20 minutes. I will not reserve any further time.

I am pleased to move this very important resolution today, since I feel it addresses an important and somewhat neglected issue in the field of health care in this province and, certainly, within the constituency of Peterborough. This area of concern has been identified for me by the constituents in Peterborough. However, I am well aware that it is a concern that touches the lives of many residents across Ontario.

Health care and the provision of excellent services in this area have long been priorities of this province. We are privileged to live in a province able to benefit from the high standards of medical care that have been developed through the years. In the past, we have seen that as concerns have arisen, they have been addressed, with attention paid and care given to provide the best possible health care in the most efficient manner possible.

We work within the framework of a system where needs, as identified, are evaluated and fulfilled in the best possible way. Bearing this commitment in mind, within the past few months I have become increasingly aware of the growing and urgent need for an improvement and rationalization of services in one particular area of the health care field. The area to which I refer deals with the realm of internal medicine, specifically with patients with kidney disorders who require haemodialysis.

From letters written to me by various constituents, from conversations and petitions, I have come to appreciate that the provision of haemodialysis in the Peterborough area is not satisfactory and actually creates a great deal of undue hardship for those who must rely on these services. Currently, the system is one that poses frustrating and upsetting roadblocks, pitting the need for treatment against the desire to pursue what most of us would consider to be a normal life.

It has been pointed out to me that the remedy for this situation is actually very simple and has been effected with great success in other regions of this province. The solution of the current problems created for kidney patients in their pursuit of life-sustaining treatment lies in the establishment of a minimal-assistance, self-care dialysis centre or a satellite haemodialysis unit. My understanding of the issue leads me to believe that such a system could be established quickly and relatively economically.

In the long run, the benefits in terms of care and convenience and the overall improvement that this minor adjustment can make for health care in general are such that the time has come for the foundation of such a unit in Peterborough and in many other centres in this great province of ours.

I have asked, in the form of a resolution, that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) approve and facilitate the supplying of a satellite haemodialysis unit in Peterborough. This is not to minimize in any way the importance of this subject to other major population centres in this province that have exactly the same problem.

This is a consideration of utmost concern to a significant number of residents in Peterborough and the surrounding area. In the early fall of this year, I provided the Minister of Health with a copy of this petition, which was signed by more than 90 constituents, all of whom are affected to some degree, either directly or indirectly, by the availability of haemodialysis services in Peterborough, or the lack thereof.

The petition is signed not only by kidney patients on, or expecting to be on, dialysis regularly, but also by patients who have had kidney transplants, by volunteers of the Peterborough

chapter of the Kidney Foundation of Canada and by a number of professional people with an understanding of the issue who support the request for a satellite dialysis unit in the area of Peterborough.

Let me say very clearly and very quickly that I am far from being an expert on medical matters, but the positive implications of locating such a facility in Peterborough are quite obvious and very clear.

I am informed that there are two different types of dialysis used in the regular treatment of kidney patients. One of these is known as peritoneal dialysis. This is an ongoing process which allows a good deal of freedom to a patient, who is not hampered by having to break his or her daily routine for the treatment. The other method, known as haemodialysis, is a different, more cumbersome system, the provision of which is of concern to me. Although I cannot give a detailed account of why one patient uses one system and another patient uses the other, it is clear that while one system is satisfactory for one patient, it does not suit another.

The process of haemodialysis requires that the patient be hooked up to a stationary machine for anywhere between two and eight hours at a time, on an average of three times a week. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to reflect on that. While you were sitting in the chair, you could be hooked up.

I think we should all take a moment to reflect on the effect that such a time requirement would have on each and every one of us. I say this with the greatest of respect. Not only does it take valuable time out of the average working day, but it does so on such a regular basis that it would also indeed be very difficult for any one of us to function as we do in our various roles in this Legislature.

This effect is compounded in many areas of the province by the lack of easily accessible treatment facilities. As was mentioned recently by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), who is in his seat this morning--and I am very pleased to see him here--there is currently not a single facility between Toronto and Kingston, a travelling distance of three hours, which is set to provide kidney dialysis service.

Therefore, for patients of the riding of Peterborough, regular treatment by dialysis requires a round trip of four hours made to a kidney centre three times a week. This involves a massive commitment of time, energy and money on the part of kidney patients seeking regular and essential treatment. Time and again, this point has been brought home. The interruption to normal life is a serious problem.

Recently, I was made aware of a young girl who is going to begin dialysis treatments in Toronto on a thrice-weekly basis. Not only will such treatment make it exceedingly difficult for her to carry on with her regular school activities, but the time and energy spent by her whole family in this process will also have a profound effect on all their lives.

Because there are currently no available facilities in the area, Peterborough kidney patients spend up to $40 per trip in pursuit of this treatment. They lose out further from difficulties presented in securing employment, which will afford them the necessary time for this essential travel.

Right now, I believe 16 people from Peterborough make the trip regularly to Toronto or Kingston for these treatments. The human toll taken in frustration and inconvenience must be devastating. Being dependent on such treatments must be difficult. I suggest that driving at least two hours, at this time of year, on our infamous Highway 115, perhaps through snowy blizzard conditions, to receive this treatment does very little to lessen the burden.

An alternative means of receiving dialysis is provided through the use of machines installed in the homes of individual patients. For eligible candidates, this treatment provides a welcome relief from the burden of continuous travel. In many cases, however, the benefits of this convenience have been tempered by problems with the aged machines provided.

My understanding is that machines are made available to certain patients who have family members or friends willing and able to take the training required to run the machine and monitor the care of the patient while he or she is undergoing treatment. Eligibility as a candidate in this program is limited to those who have adequate facilities at home, and it is therefore not a means of treatment that is suitable to every patient.

11:10

The benefits of this system to the patients, through convenience, make an appreciable difference. However, the limitations of this system cannot be denied. Equipment breakdowns force patients to make frightening emergency trips to a hospital with dialysis services, and even booking time on these machines can be extremely difficult. The time delay this can cause presents not only an additional worry to patients, but also, if prolonged, can become dangerous to their health. I cannot help but sympathize with the uncertainty that these people must deal with every day of their lives.

What of the family member responsible for giving the assistance with these dialysis treatments at home? The stress and physical strain involved in monitoring the patient and the equipment and the time commitment required in the process create an additional burden on the rest of the family. Should the assistant take ill, there is the additional worry of finding someone else who can take over provision of care in the interim period.

I sincerely hope the Minister of Health will immediately focus his attention on this facet of the health care system in our province, one that is obviously lacking. I respectfully suggest that improvements are warranted, not only for efficiency's sake but also for the standard of care provided in Peterborough and other centres in this province.

At best, the system seems to me to be inefficient. At worst, I fear for the danger posed in many instances and for the frustrations caused to the patients. I regret the continued waste of human and financial resources caused by a system that can be so easily and hastily remedied. I am convinced that a simple and efficient means to improve this area of health care lies in the establishment of a satellite dialysis unit for the central Ontario region at a hospital in Peterborough. There are a number of satellite programs currently active, and apparently very successful, in Ontario today.

One of these is located in Hanover. It was established in 1977 as a satellite of Victoria Hospital in London. As a satellite unit, the dialysis machines are located and beds provided at the Hanover and District Hospital and nursing staff are made available for monitoring and care of the patients.

As such, it is a skin-and-bones type of dialysis operation, providing treatment on an outpatient basis with any detailed specialized care being given at the base hospital in London. Care of the patients is closely monitored and in-depth reports are submitted to the kidney specialist at the base hospital. The entire operation is geared to the provision of this treatment on an efficient outpatient basis with a minimum of confusion or inconvenience to the patient and a high degree of patient care.

The benefits of this program are obvious. Machinery is less likely to break down, and if it happens, there are people on the spot who are trained to deal with the problems created. With a structured reporting system and medical staff available, the patient is guaranteed that the treatment will progress as it should. Furthermore, to name the obvious, the availability of treatment closer to home cannot help but be a tremendous relief to patients accustomed to travelling long distances and to the rest of their families.

Another concern that has been presented in terms of Peterborough arises directly from the immediate problem of distance, especially in Toronto cases, such as accident victims or in the case of kidney failure. In such cases, time spent transporting the patient to the proper emergency facilities cannot in any way benefit the patient. From that standpoint, the need for a local facility is undeniable.

The statistics speak for themselves. Of all the kidney patients in the Hanover area since the establishment of a satellite unit, 60 per cent now are using the unit on a regular basis, leaving only 40 per cent on home dialysis machines. In Hanover, the minimal assistance self-care program has been encouraged as an alternative to home care. It is obvious that the program has been very well received, so much so that a satellite program has recently been developed to run out of the base hospital in London. As an outpatient program, this service has proved itself to be a cost-efficient and manpower-efficient means of providing this much-needed service to kidney patients in this region.

Again, I call upon the Minister of Health to facilitate the provision of the same standard of care throughout the province. I propose Peterborough as the most logical geographical location to consider for such a unit in the east-central Ontario area. We have a number of excellent medical facilities in the city, and the need for this additional facility is clear.

I know the Minister of Health is well aware of the demand for such a facility in the Peterborough area, and I understand and sincerely hope he is looking into the matter actively. I urge him as strongly as I can to evaluate the services currently provided and take steps immediately to approve the establishment of such a unit.

I have been in contact with Sam Majic, president of the Peterborough

chapter of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Among the many activities of this organization, they have spearheaded numerous successful fund-raising drives. I am told much of the money raised is currently being used to finance the travel necessary for kidney patients receiving treatment in centres away from Peterborough. I find this extremely disturbing, and I question a system that fosters the inefficient use of time and places such a strain on people, especially when there is a simple and effective solution to the problem.

I have been asked to pass on a challenge from this

chapter of the Kidney Foundation, and to notify the minister that this organization based in Peterborough will come up with the funding to buy the machine. It asks only for ministry approval and operating costs to run such a program in a designated Peterborough hospital.

In the Peterborough area, we have medical personnel trained and willing to work in such a dialysis unit, and we have excellent hospital facilities, with access to the kidney centres of Montreal and Toronto for follow-up visits. The need for this unit has been demonstrated. The solution is obvious, very simple and highly effective.

On behalf of kidney patients in Peterborough and surrounding area, and indeed those in the rest of the province, who ask only for a chance to lead normal, productive lives, I ask the Minister of Health to re-evaluate the program of services currently available in our area and in other parts of the province, and I urge him to work with us towards the establishment of a satellite dialysis unit in a Peterborough hospital.

Mr. Warner: I am very pleased to support the resolution brought forward by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner). He is to be congratulated, because he raises a very serious problem which especially affects the area between Toronto and Kingston but, no doubt, other areas in the province as well.

At the outset, I want to pay tribute to two doctors in my area with whom I have been working closely and who are to be personally congratulated on their determination to achieve for the people of Scarborough the appropriate services in the renal dialysis program. They are Dr. Paul Tam and Dr. Allan Toguri, both of whom have worked exceedingly hard on this issue.

I want to quote Dr. Tam, who said one of his patients died while waiting to get on a renal dialysis program for kidney failure. "There was no room at a downtown Toronto hospital, so he had to wait. He finally died from complications while waiting to get on a dialysis machine."

Each year, of every one million people in Canada, about 60 people go into end-stage renal failure and are in need of dialysis to stay alive. There is no such program between downtown Toronto and Kingston. It seems to me it is quite a shame that in a society we pride as being civilized and well organized, we cannot provide the kind of service that would prevent that tragedy.

11:20

Scarborough General Hospital commissioned a study by Peat Marwick. The study was extremely useful. One of its conclusions was that patients in need of chronic dialysis cannot be handled at Scarborough General Hospital since it lacks the facilities for patient teaching to begin a chronic program, and for ongoing patient management. The need has been clearly identified, not just by the hospital and by people living in the community but also by a very thorough study completed by Peat Marwick.

In addition, a Department of National Health and Welfare guideline for regional renal failure programs estimates 200 to 300 people per million population are at risk. Of these, 25 per cent may require full care; that is, 50 to 75 cases per year will require three dialyses a week in hospital. Of the total population at risk, 10 per cent will require a period of hospitalization in any given year. The patient load for a regional dialysis centre should not exceed 50 to 75 full-care patients. Each region of one million population will require approximately 20 ambulatory dialysis treatment stations.

This allows sufficient capacity to treat patients for end-stage renal disease and still leaves a reserve for dialysis of patients with other indications.

Using the federal guidelines, the at-risk population for the city of Scarborough would be approximately 100 to 150, and a 10-bed dialysis facility would be warranted. The centre could also serve surrounding communities as treatment space is available. Of course, we have been attempting to assist people in the surrounding communities of Pickering, Durham and so on.

In attempting to achieve a modern approach to health care, we are looking more and more at what can be done in the community and relying less on hospital facilities. Indeed, this program falls into that category very nicely. Patients on renal dialysis fall into one of three main programs of patient care: centre dialysis patients, who are dialysed in hospitals by staff; self-dialysed patients, who are dialysed in hospitals by themselves; and a home dialysis program, where the patients care for themselves and are assisted by family members.

That aspect means that with only a 10-bed unit we can accommodate up to 100 people per year. That is making efficient use of very scarce resources, which are always a problem in communities and particularly in hospitals.

The issue at Scarborough General has been known for some time. A great deal of study has been done, as I mentioned, by an outside source, Peat Marwick, and by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The community has been aware of the problem. Doctors in the hospital have pushed hard for a long time. The matter has been before the district health council for almost three years, yet no decision has been made. To me that is inexcusable. I do not know how in good conscience the government could have allowed this decision to drag on for almost three years.

I am going to read a little quote from Mrs. Helen McBrien, the widow of Dr. McBrien, a long-time and well-respected family doctor in Scarborough. Last year, Dr. McBrien died of kidney failure. In his three years on dialysis, he spent 254 days at Toronto Western Hospital. His wife drove him downtown three times a week, and each trip took 35 minutes to an hour. The couple lived two blocks from Scarborough General Hospital, and Dr. McBrien was attempting to maintain his medical practice as a family physician.

Here was a doctor attempting to serve his patients and not let them down, yet three times a week he had to make a trip downtown while, ironically, he lived only two blocks from our hospital. That says to me we have failed. When we know how to handle problems and do not handle them, that is failure.

On this issue, the previous government failed to deliver the program that was identified and needed, and the present government continues to fail. I am becoming very frustrated by it all. I have raised the matter in the House on more than one occasion. I have written to the minister, but to date we still have no answer. I know, as the member for Peterborough knows, that there are people in our community who are suffering from kidney disease who could be assisted, both in the hospital and in their own home, at a relatively low cost, yet they are not being helped. We have the knowledge, the expertise, the equipment and the money; but there is no action.

I am pleased this morning to rise in support of the member for Peterborough. I hope other members in this assembly will do as the member and I have done and continue to put pressure on this government to deliver, because there is nothing more important in our lives in Ontario than our health care system--nothing. We have a lot of work to do to provide the health care services that people in Ontario need and deserve.

When Dr. Tam and Dr. Toguri came in to see me about this, I made a pledge to them, which I will repeat, assuming the minister will be reading it. I said I would not rest until Scarborough General Hospital has a renal dialysis program. I assume the member for Peterborough will do likewise in his community.

Mr. Polsinelli: In rising to speak to this resolution, I want to describe to the members of this assembly a number of aspects of our health care system that must be considered before a decision such as that proposed by my colleague here today is enacted.

In the past three decades, we have seen phenomenal increases in our use of health care services and in health care costs. Ministry of Health expenditures have been growing at an average of 12 per cent in the past 10 years, far surpassing the rate of inflation. Only 10 years ago, the total actual expenditures of the Ontario Ministry of Health were slightly more than $3 billion. This year, the budget will be more than $10 billion, representing approximately 32 per cent of all provincial expenditures.

Health care in this province is big business. The system, which employs more than 200,000 people, outranks many of Canada's largest corporations. If ministry expenditures were compared with the sales and operating revenues of Canada's largest industrial companies as reported by the Financial Post, it would rank in the top five.

In recent years, ministry spending has increased by five per cent per year in real terms. If these trends continue, the increase in our health care budget, excluding inflation, will be $3 billion over the next five years. While a one-third hike in real health care spending is projected, no one seriously believes we are going to be one third healthier as a result. It is apparent that more health care is not necessarily better health care. We must now focus on quality and value rather than on quantity and volume.

11:30

We need only look south of the border to see that quantity of care is not directly related to quality of care. In 1985, our American neighbours spent proportionately more on health care than we did: 10 per cent of the US gross national product, compared with 8.5 per cent of the Canadian gross national product. However, on the basis of many indicators, such as infant mortality, Canadians are healthier than Americans.

In Ontario, growth in health care spending has occurred despite the fact that no major new universal health care programs have been introduced in the past five years. We are largely buying more of the same, but buying more of the same can restrict our ability to buy what is new, different or innovative. What is more, health care is only one of a number of government programs that people expect to be funded and provided. Housing, job creation, education and social services are all competing for a legitimate share of government revenue.

These demands are coming at a time when the federal government is cutting back on transfer funds in health care and education and is looking to the provinces to shoulder a greater portion of the financial load. With the revolution now occurring in medical and health care technology, it is certain there will never be enough money to cope with the growing demand for services unless the health care system is carefully managed.

The cost of health care affects all of us, whether we are health professionals, businessmen, politicians or private citizens. It is an issue we must respond to as a society, because it raises not only financial considerations but also moral and ethical values.

What kind of health care system do we want? What kind of system can we afford? What kind of system will benefit the most people? What kind of system provides compassionate and necessary care, with prudent managers? These are questions we all have to answer; ones we all must propose and discuss.

Let us identify some of the pressures within our health care system. In the past five years, we have recorded a 54 per cent increase in the volume of private lab tests. In other words, in 1985-86, Ontarians utilized half again as many lab tests as five years earlier. Over the past seven years, the cost of prescription claims under the Ontario drug benefit plan increased by almost 300 per cent. That is an astonishing and alarming figure.

While rising drug costs and expanded benefits in a growing elderly population are significant factors in these developments, they alone do not account for the volume of increases we are seeing. We have to ask ourselves whether there is some inappropriate use of our drug benefit plan.

In 1985, a record 1,405 new physicians registered to practise in Ontario. These new registrants represented an almost six per cent increase in the number of physicians in the province in just one year. Our general population growth, by the way, is averaging about 1.2 per cent annually. Today in this province, our physician-to-population ratio is one doctor for every 495 people. Twenty years ago, the ratio was one doctor for every 762 people.

In health care, technological innovations create whole new areas of demand and increased costs. For example, the computerized axial tomography scanner does not replace the X-ray machine; it is basically an add-on in the system. Similarly, magnetic resonance imagers will not replace CAT scanners; they will become add-ons to the X-ray and the CAT scanners. In health care, the new rarely replaces the old.

It is because of these many pressures in our health care system that effective management is so important. We must ensure the most effective use of our health care resources through a management structure that allows for consultation and consensus.

The district health council program of the Minister of Health is a prime example of such a management structure. District health councils provide an effective means for local groups, associations, health care providers and individuals to participate in planning health care services in their regions. Councils assess community health requirements, develop plans for comprehensive and co-ordinated services and advise the minister on local priorities for health care spending.

The Minister of Health has stated that all proposals for new health care programs, regardless of the source of funding, will have to be reviewed by the district health councils. This approach will ensure that valuable health dollars are spent on the co-ordinated development of health care programs needed by each region.

Earlier in his remarks, the member for Peterborough indicated that "needs, as identified, are evaluated and fulfilled." Particularly because of those remarks, I say that in the light of my understanding to date, the minister has not received any indication from the local district health council as to the need for a dialysis unit to serve the Peterborough area.

As my colleague knows, any new hospital-based program in the province must be reviewed and priority ranked by a district health council before funding can be approved. For that reason, I would be hesitant to show my support for the resolution at this time in the absence of an endorsement from the local district health council, an endorsement that would legitimize the true community need for the proposal and reflect the responsible decision for the effective management of our health care system.

I can understand the pressures the member for Peterborough is under in trying to have this resolution endorsed by the House. As a local member, I have similar pressures on me from York-Finch General Hospital, which is currently preparing plans for an $8-million expansion of its emergency wing. It is a long process. We are halfway through that process. I believe we are now past the master plan stage. We are looking at the functional stage, which would provide a detailed narrative document, proposed by the hospital in co-operation with the ministry, showing the actual diagrams of the new expansion of the wing. These are very real pressures that each of us is under.

Each one of the members of this assembly has very real pressures from local hospital organizations, local district health councils and local people saying there is never enough in health care services. It is our responsibility as a government and it is the minister's responsibility as the Minister of Health to analyse these in cooperation and consensus with the local district health councils and to allocate the resources as fairly and as equitably as possible.

Mr. Pollock: I am proud to have this opportunity to stand and support the resolution of my friend and neighbour the member for Peterborough. Those members who have lived in large centres such as Toronto or Ottawa do not realize that people in the rural areas have to spend many hours travelling to hospitals to receive haemodialysis treatment.

As the resolution points out, there is no haemodialysis unit between Kingston and Toronto. It is inconceivable to me that in the latter part of the 20th century we are not able, and in some cases not willing, to bring adequate and convenient health care to all the people of Ontario. In fact, the Liberal record in the health care field can only be described as poor.

One area in which very little progress has been seen is the Liberal promise of no Ontario health insurance plan premiums. On this, as with most areas where the public would benefit, the government is moving at a snail's pace. On the other hand, when it comes to raising taxes, the government has shown amazing speed.

Today, my friend the member for Peterborough is giving the government a chance to redeem itself. Should the Minister of Health today announce allocations of funding to purchase, set up and operate a haemodialysis unit for the Peterborough or Belleville area, he would be bringing a great deal of benefit to those people living between Kingston and Toronto who must spend hundreds of hours each year in travelling time to receive dialysis treatment.

In my riding, there are several people who must travel two hours or more in each direction to a hospital in Kingston to receive dialysis treatment. For example, Mrs. Armstrong from Marmora is currently recovering from transplant surgery in which she received a new kidney. Until only a few weeks ago, Mrs. Armstrong was required to travel to Kingston three times a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, for treatments that lasted four to four and a half hours each time. There was another one to two hours of preparation and recovery time. This, along with almost four hours spent travelling, made for a very long and exhausting day for Mrs. Armstrong.

11:40

Also, members may not be aware that the treatment often left Mrs. Armstrong feeling very sick. On several occasions, Mr. Armstrong had to pull off the side of the road on the way home so that Mrs. Armstrong could be sick to her stomach. This type of reaction is not uncommon. If there had been a dialysis unit closer to home, Mrs. Armstrong might have been able to reach home before becoming ill and not have had to suffer the indignity of being sick on the roadside.

Mrs. Armstrong is one of the lucky ones. Her doctors were able to find a donor. Others are not so lucky. Many spend years on the dialysis machine and eventually die, without being able to resume active and normal lives.

The very least we as legislators can do for these people is make them as comfortable as possible until they receive new kidneys and provide them with haemodialysis units within reasonable distances of their homes.

Chapters of the Order of the Eastern Star and the Royal Canadian Legion in Hastings county have raised, and are willing to raise, money to fund a haemodialysis machine in that area. It is not fair for these people to have to travel a long distance, particularly in emergency situations or in extreme weather conditions, for treatment which keeps them alive. We have the chance today to show we care. I urge the unanimous support of this resolution.

A few years ago, Keith Norton allocated funds for a unit in Belleville, but all the details could not be worked out and the dialysis unit was never installed. I urge the government to take immediate action and announce today the funds to purchase, install and operate a haemodialysis unit for the Peterborough-Hastings area.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise in support of the motion before us prepared by the member for Peterborough. It shows the sensitivity of the member to the needs of the people in his community and in Ontario. I respect greatly the kind of initiative he is bringing to us today.

I was with our task force on human and social issues this past summer. When we visited the great town of Peterborough, this very subject was discussed at that time. We were aware not only of seniors having this problem but also of many other people in the community who had to go long distances to other parts of Ontario to receive their dialysis treatments for kidney disease.

As the honorary chairman of the York region kidney unit, I have a personal involvement with the Kidney Foundation. I also have a very personal contact, because my brother was one of the 409 patients who died of kidney failure in 1983. It is in that context that I have always had a special interest in the needs of kidney patients and what we as citizens in Ontario could do to help them.

It is amazing how large is the number of those who suffer. In 1983, 2,922 patients in Ontario suffered total kidney failure. Of these, 47 per cent have since received functioning transplants, a large number of people with kidney disease who would otherwise face a very bleak future. There is no cure for kidney disease. One of the three approaches used is the living organ transplant. Indeed, there has to be far more done in this province to encourage people to donate their organs so that we can have this as the most cost-effective and best method of helping people who will otherwise face a very unhappy, bleak and sick future.

We should do everything we can in this Legislature to advance the educational knowledge of people, to get them to sign organ donation cards and to get the government to improve and streamline the system so that people who otherwise may not think of this will increase the possibility of other people having a remedy.

In the 1983 figures, 628 patients in Ontario were using the treatment known as peritoneal dialysis. This method of treatment frequently causes patients to have infections. In 1983, of all the people in this form of treatment, 52.7 per cent got peritonitis; 320 of the 1,313 patients using this treatment had to stop using it as a result of complications.

Another alternative form, the third way in which kidney disease is treated, is through haemodialysis. This is done by taking the body waste out of the blood by using an artificial kidney machine. I think the member for Peterborough was asking for this approach in satellite cities such as Peterborough, so that they could serve the needs of their local communities.

There are 23 hospitals in Ontario that offer haemodialysis. While they cover the major population centres, they do not by any means serve all the people in the province conveniently. For example, aside from Peterborough, Barrie, Belleville, Chatham, Cornwall and Guelph do not have a treatment centre within their boundaries or in the adjacent municipalities. At present, in all but Guelph, the travel time to the cities with a treatment centre is substantial.

Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians live well beyond the range of any of these centres. For them, kidney failure means a major move as well as a loss of capacity to function normally. For those who suffer from kidney disease, there is a need for immediate expansion of kidney treatment into satellite centres.

Let us also see expansion of other services, such as in-home dialysis. The cost of a patient dialysing at home is approximately $20,000 a year compared to the in-hospital cost of $35,000 a year. This does not mean that hospital treatment centres should be eliminated, but based on British experience, 50 per cent of all haemodialysis patients could be dialysing at home. In Ontario, this would mean that rather than 680 patients in hospital centres there might be 340, at an annual cost saving of $5.1 million.

I would like to see a better rationalization of in-hospital treatment facilities. At present, apart from the need for satellite facilities, which I have already mentioned, Ontarians with kidney failure are well served by the Ontario health care system. However, at the present growth rate of net new patients per annum, facilities of all types will need to expand.

I would also like to see a fresh effort and an enthusiastic response by the Minister of Health and the government as they face up to this opportunity to serve those people with kidney disease.

I had a phone call this morning from a parent whose three-year-old child is in the Hospital for Sick Children. All last week this child was on hold, waiting for an analysis of his problem. The child needs a procedure that requires time in surgery. He had to wait without food for two days in preparation for surgery but was unable to be scheduled because of the heavy load in that hospital.

There is one very important key to the future of people with a disease such as this. Those of us who are healthy and who care must make sure the system is ready to respond; and not only here in Toronto, where it should be ready, where there is service, support and a very meaningful and caring group of doctors, surgeons, nurses and health care specialists, who want to do their best, it should also be expanded throughout Ontario so that kidney disease is not something that causes a person to be isolated from the rest of the community, isolated from life and forced to go into a different kind of lifestyle.

We have to put this as a matter of high urgency. I trust that through sharing our concerns today in the House, we will all do more to help in this great crusade.

11:50

Mr. Breaugh: I want to speak briefly to support the resolution. I would probably move an amendment, were that possible, to remove one word, "Peterborough," and insert the word "Oshawa," but I will not do that.

The problem that has been pointed out is one that needs to be addressed by the province as a whole. Many people from the region of Durham use this kind of facility in downtown Toronto, and that is the problem. If you live south of Bloor Street in Toronto, you have the finest medical equipment and personnel in the world at your disposal. If you live north of Bloor Street, you do not, or at least not to the same degree. Part of what the resolution points out is that there are, I suppose, thousands of people in the catchment area from here to Kingston who would make use of this type of facility.

I know that in the region of Durham there are probably close to 100 people who make use of facilities of precisely this nature in downtown Toronto medical centres.

It would be a bit of a problem to determine the best geographic site for the unit. Peterborough, I suppose, is as good as any, and Oshawa is as good as any. There might be several other hospital facilities between here and Kingston that could serve the purpose just as well.

Transportation is a problem for many people, for example, coming from the northern part of Durham in the winter months. What in the summer months is an aggravation in the winter months becomes something much more than an aggravation. With travelling conditions getting a little more difficult the further north you get, you add that to the trauma. As one who commutes regularly from Oshawa to downtown Toronto to go to work, I can attest to the fact that on some days it is not a bad drive. It is never a pleasant drive, but on some days it is not bad. However, on some days it is a treacherous drive.

People who are making that drive on a regular basis to receive medical care do not need that added trauma.

The resolution brings to the House a problem that we ought to be concerned about, and that is, where are these medical facilities located? It points out that there is an imbalance in our medical care system. I have a group that is meeting in Durham now to try to get this kind of unit put into a hospital somewhere in Durham. Perhaps it would be better left to the health councils to make the determination as to precisely which hospital could best utilize the facility and where the placement of the unit would be ideal for the community.

It might turn out, and I have heard some discussions to this effect, that Peterborough would be a good location. I do not want to deny that for a moment. Although the drive to Peterborough is more pleasant than the drive to Toronto, in wintertime it can get a little chancy too. I have heard that the government has just shut down its plans to do what it ought to do on Highway 115/35, and that is a terrible disgrace. I am sure that just prior to the election they will rectify it by building the road they ought to build, so that will solve that problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Next week.

Mr. Breaugh: It is coming next week.

The resolution deserves the support of all members. It points out a problem in medical care in Ontario, that specialized units of care such as this one were not always placed according to need. They were often placed according to who in the medical profession could get together the best offer, could put together the justification in terms of expenditures of money, expertise in terms of staff and find a hospital board that was prepared to proceed on that basis.

The imbalance is clear. I suppose this is a little startling, but in many respects it is probably just as difficult for people who need specialized care who live in Durham or Peterborough as it is for people in the far north, except that for the far north we now recognize that there is a severe problem and we have an air transportation system to provide for that. Many of our citizens live much closer to the specialized facility, but they have to get there on their own hook, so to speak.

The resolution is certainly worthy of support. Even though it does state that the facility will go to Peterborough, I still invite all members to support the resolution because it does point out that there is a serious problem. The problem is one we have known about for some period of time. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has been very active in trying to get that kind of unit in a hospital in his area. That would serve my purposes just as well as the one in Peterborough. Frankly, I am not going to be strident about where the unit is placed.

All I am saying is that somewhere between downtown Toronto and the city of Kingston there ought to be such a unit just to make it accessible to the public at large.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to thank the member for Oshawa for leaving me a few moments.

I rise to support the resolution of the member for Peterborough. I would also, mildly or quietly, support the thoughts of the member for Oshawa. Certainly, a haemodialysis unit is needed east of Toronto. We would be happy to see it either in Peterborough or in Durham region. Some of the people who live in my riding use the Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay. There is no question that those requiring this service could certainly make use of the unit in Peterborough as opposed to coming to Metro Toronto.

I would also like to take the opportunity to say a few words relative to York County Hospital. We are fortunate to have a person by the name of Whipper Billy Watson living in East Gwillimbury, in Sharon. He is a former famous wrestler, but more important, he is a great humanitarian. Anyone who has followed his tremendous successes in working with disabled people will be very much aware of the millions of dollars he has raised to help disabled people.

Right now, he is undertaking a new project, which is to raise $2 million for a computerized axial tomography scanner unit for York County Hospital. That will be a tremendous new service for people in the south Simcoe and York areas. Unfortunately, Whipper finds it necessary to raise this from the community because the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is not coming forth with the money to put the unit in the York County Hospital. In the past, Whipper raised money for a pool in the York County Hospital to help in the rehab unit there. We wish him well in this new undertaking. I am sure he will succeed and he will have a tremendous amount of community backing in undertaking this project.

That is somewhat aside. I know from the resolution at hand, however, it is the same sort of idea in that we as members are seeking to improve health care services for the people in our area. Just as some of the people on the east side of my riding might well use the haemodialysis unit that we hope will go into the Peterborough hospital, the people from the whole west side of my riding in Georgina, East Gwillimbury and soon Whitchurch-Stouffville would have the opportunity of using the CAT scanner unit in York County Hospital.

For many of them, it is a considerable drive. If they are in poor health, it becomes an extra burden. The closer we can get these very important services to their homes, the better it is for the health care of those people.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on private members' public business.

PROMOTION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS

Mr. Speaker: The time has come and we will now deal with the first item, the motion by Mr. G. I. Miller. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise? Seeing none able to get up, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. G. I. Miller's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

SATELLITE DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Speaker: The next item we will deal with is Mr. Turner's resolution. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise? Therefore, I will place the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Turner's motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1987, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by the Lieutenant Governor, Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr. Pollock: September 16, 1986, was the official opening day of the International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show, which was held in the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. The motto of the ploughing match was "The Big Cheese." The big cheese has now been cut into small pieces and packaged, and I want to present a package of this cheese to all the members who attended. These are with the compliments of Cooney brothers, rural route 3, Stirling. I ask the pages to come forth and deliver them and I will read off the names:

The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard), the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Keyes), the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), the member for Simcoe East (Mr.

McLean), the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman), the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) and the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: Today I am introducing a private member's bill to ban Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on Queen Street East in Toronto. The bill also protects the democratic right of residents affected by racetrack activities to be heard and to have their concerns taken into account by the government-appointed Ontario Racing Commission, which regulates racetracks in Ontario.

Greenwood is the only racetrack in Ontario located in a large, high-density, urban residential area. It has had a long tradition of no Sunday racing since it opened in 1875. Yesterday the Ontario Racing Commission approved the Ontario Jockey Club's request for 52 Sundays of racetrack activities for 1987, including both live racing and inter-track betting.

This will mean racing activity seven days a week for 19 weeks and five or six days a week for the other 33 weeks. The residents will lose their one day of respite from parking traffic congestion, noise and tow-away zoning. They will no longer be able to entertain family and friends on Sundays or have quiet enjoyment of their homes and property on that day.

SANTA LUCIA DAY

Mr. Henderson: I want to take the opportunity to recognize Santa Lucia Day, which is celebrated by the Scandinavian community on December 13 each year. In Sweden, according to the old calendar, December 13 was considered to be the longest night of the year. At this time of year, in the midst of an unforgiving winter, the northern regions of Sweden endure what must seem like eternal darkness. Santa Lucia Day welcomes the returning light. Santa Lucia is the Scandinavian Queen of Lights who brightens the northern darkness with her crown of candles.

In Toronto, a contest is held each year by the Scandinavian-Canadian Club to select the young woman who will represent Santa Lucia. The winner is chosen for her charm, beauty and gentleness. Today the Scandinavian community helps to celebrate Santa Lucia Day here at the Legislature by performing traditional Scandinavian hymns and carols.

This year marks the 26th consecutive year we have held a celebration of Santa Lucia Day here at Queen's Park. In closing, I would like to thank the Scandinavian-Canadian Club for sharing with us this beautiful light-bringing tradition.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. O'Connor: On November 27, this Legislature passed a motion put forward by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) requiring the Canadian government to enshrine property rights in our Constitution. In his statement, the member said his resolution would "... protect property owners against unnecessary or unfair government actions against their property. The amendment protects against unjust infringement of an individual's rights. That is something that Canada has always stood for." The resolution passed 44 to 20.

On Tuesday of this week, I proposed an amendment that would protect the rights of property owners, that being an exemption for condominium owners from the ban on adult-only apartment buildings, an amendment that would allow those property owners the right to enjoy a lifestyle that they had chosen, paid for, earned and that we as legislators should respect. That amendment was defeated by the combined will of the Liberal and New Democratic parties.

I find it somewhat puzzling that the Liberal Party supported the resolution to enshrine property rights, but when put to the absolute test which would see it enshrined in legislation in this province, it failed to do so. Is support for the rights of property owners something this government will accept only when it is not backed up by the force of law?

SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEES

Mr. Allen: In many important respects, this week represents a changing of the guard for the boards of education and school boards around the province. The separate school trustees, who have for so long inhabited those boards as representatives of the Roman Catholic ratepayers whose children were in the public system, will now be leaving those boards of education. Our party would like to pay special tribute to the role they have played over the years as stewards not only for their own ratepayers but also stewards for public education in general.

When they came on the boards, I think there was some concern about their presence, but one and all functioned as representatives acting for the best interests of public education in general in the province.

To all the trustees of all the boards that are engaging in their newly restructured responsibilities, we say bonjour, bonne chance et bons résultats.

APPLE PRODUCTION

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to point out to members of the Legislature that the apples that are on their desks today are compliments of Tom Haskett and Bill Courtnage, apple producers in Vittoria.

The peanuts on the desks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), the leader of the third party (Mr. Rae) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are from the same area.

I would also like to say thank you to the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), who gave us the cheese. I think it indicates to all members of the House the good things we grow in Ontario. Christmas is a fitting time to point out to our fellow citizens who live in urban areas the good things we do have. We want to wish them season's greetings and all the best in 1987.

PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION

Mr. McLean: In view of Bill 154, the bill on pay equity that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has before the House, I wonder why he has not cleaned up his own front porch before attempting to have his neighbours clean up theirs.

Within the government there is a wide variance of pay levels for persons performing similar functions. Worse than that, to add to this inequity, it appears that the Attorney General's own ministry, the one that put forward this pay equality legislation, is the most guilty of the very discrimination he has brought the bill forward to address. I am surprised that neither his staff nor his New Democratic Party colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), has noticed this.

The Attorney General has stated in many words that pay equity will be possible and practical to put into effect. Why can his own office, his own ministry and the other government ministries not get their act together? He is reported as saying that his pay envelope is fixed by the government. Is he not the government? Can he not change a bad situation and bring equity into his own offices on a fair basis? Let this House see a demonstration from the minister in charge, a demonstration of fairness and credibility.

13:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SPECIAL MUNICIPAL GRANT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Hemlo gold mines are creating welcome jobs and investment in northwestern Ontario. This development is placing heavy demands on nearby municipalities, particularly Marathon and Manitouwadge, which face cost pressures associated with providing municipal services to the employees of the mines. These communities do not have the ability to raise needed revenues because the mining operations are outside their boundaries. As a result, they are faced with a need further to increase their debt loads as well as increasing property taxes on existing industries and home owners.

Today I am announcing a special grant of $500,000 for 1987 to the township of Marathon. This will greatly reduce pressures for mill rate increases next year and allow Marathon to proceed with necessary development. Regarding the impact of the Hemlo development on Manitouwadge, we will be consulting with that community to determine whether it requires special assistance as well.

We will also be working with northern communities, the northern development councils and the resource industries to determine the most appropriate way to expand the revenue base available to northern resource communities so that they will be better able to cope with the impact of resource developments outside their boundaries.

Mr. Pouliot: We welcome the feeble attempt by the Treasurer to address the fiscal injustice in Hemlo. Unfortunately, he has missed the boat. While he recognized to some extent the needs of the communities that have to provide essential services at Hemlo, we still have a system whereby we have socialism for the rich gold mines and a true free enterprise system for the poor taxpayers who have to pay for those essential services.

During the past two years, the Liberal government has done rather well at taking our policies; it should do so today. I invite the Treasurer to take one more proposal from the New Democratic Party of Ontario. We have it here. We are talking about nothing less than a fair system of assessment. We are not asking the Treasurer to impose undue or unfair taxation on the gold mines. We know they provide jobs, but they and he have a problem of distribution; they are paying it to the wrong people.

That impasse, that injustice, that dilemma is recognized for another essential service: education. When it comes to sewers and water and recreation, we do not have the same conciliation from the minister. What is going on? We have the solution. Give us the kind of social justice that will permit and allow the richest people in Canada, in terms of the free enterprise system, finally to pay at least five cents of taxes. We want a style, a method, an approach to bring forward fiscal responsibility and justice for the people of Lake Nipigon.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support my friend the member for Lake Nipigon and to ask the Treasurer why on earth White River is not mentioned, since it is a community affected by the Hemlo development as well.

This is a continuation of the inadequate ad hoc approach of the Tory government in giving money to the municipalities when they come cap in hand. Why does the minister not accept the recommendations of the Association of Mining Municipalities of Ontario, which asked for an expansion of the assessment so its members would have regular funding and not have to beg for it from the provincial government?

Mr. Harris: I want to respond briefly to the Treasurer's statement on Marathon. This announcement is a charade; it does not come close to one half of what Marathon calculates is the necessary offset. The government still has no policy in place to deal with these situations throughout northern Ontario. It would prefer to deal with this situation at the last minute.

The statement is far too late for Marathon to be able to plan and far short of what Marathon expected was coming. The government can go through with its benevolent little cheque without having a policy. It is a disgrace. There is no policy in place, and the amount of money is simply not adequate to provide the offsets required.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am pleased to announce Strategies for Renewal, which I now table, a new program to revitalize the public service. The program is based on three major commitments by this government: (1) the compensation of the Ontario public service will more closely reflect the diversity of the Ontario population; (2) government will reflect the best management styles and be responsive to changes in the work place; and (3) recruitment for the public service will be based on planned staffing initiatives which provide equality of opportunity.

These strategies will be achieved in a number of ways, including more open recruiting among the public to attract more people from outside the public service, improved access to jobs among ministries for current civil servants and equity programs to provide fair and equal opportunity.

Fundamental to the success of this initiative will be increased turnover to provide flexibility. To accelerate this, a program of voluntary exit options will be introduced effective April 1987.

I have outlined the components of the program and I refer members to the brochure I am tabling today.

Mr. Harris: I will take a brief moment to respond to the Treasurer's statement today on the Strategies for Renewal program.

I note the Treasurer stated: "Fundamental to the success of this initiative will be increased turnover to provide flexibility. To accelerate this, a program of voluntary exit options will be introduced effective April 1987."

I will be interested to see whether those voluntary exit options are similar to the type of voluntary exit options faced by the Clerk of the Legislature, Kirk Foley and the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship.

If this government would spend less money and time on printing glossy brochures on all the things it is going to do and would carry on and do some of the programs that should be done on an ongoing basis, we would be a lot better off.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In keeping with the government's commitment to openness and accountability to the people of Ontario, I am pleased to join with my cabinet colleagues to report to the House in my ministry's response to the Provincial Auditor's report.

In general, the auditor found that my ministry's financial controls and grant expenditures in its accounts payable system were operating adequately and satisfactorily.

Since June 1985, my ministry has followed a rigid agenda aimed at realizing the full and tremendous potential of tourism and recreation. That is why we have acted immediately to correct those areas identified by the auditor as needing improvement. We received the report on September 30, 1986. By October 16, we outlined to the Provincial Auditor what we proposed to do. Today I am pleased to describe briefly some of the initiatives we have already put into place and others we are actively planning.

In his review of my ministry's operations, the auditor's primary concern was with the management processes and procedures related to the ongoing monitoring of the projects and the activities we fund.

These are not new problems. I was surprised to see that many of these comments were made in the auditor's report in 1983, and I can only wonder why the previous government did not take corrective action.

With regard to sports and fitness grants, the auditor detailed similar activities needing improvement. We have taken immediate steps to improve our control in these areas. Specific instances raised by the auditor regarding clients who may have received ineligible funding are being reviewed, and recoveries will be made where appropriate. We are also currently developing a set of new funding guidelines for amateur sports bodies.

The examples I have just given are from specific program areas, but I emphasize that our plans for corrective action extend beyond that. Our initiatives are directed towards improving our operational and management controls of all my ministry's grants programs.

The role of our regional offices in the monitoring process has been clarified. New monitoring and reporting procedures have been developed and will be implemented shortly.

In addition, the capacity of our computerized grants administration system is currently being expanded. For the longer term, we are finalizing an information systems strategy. This will avoid duplication in controls and provide valuable data to regional staff as they administer their files.

The changing nature of the job being done by our sports consultants demands additional skills, particularly in the area of financial management and control. While their prime role will remain in organizational and leadership development, my ministry agrees that the consultants must be trained to scrutinize more closely the financial statements of client organizations. Also, this will now be incorporated into job requirements.

Financial and operational reviews of sports governing bodies will be undertaken in 1987, where necessary, to assist those organizations in improving their internal controls.

In conclusion, I point out that in April 1986 my ministry, in following this government's desire to give better value for the taxpayers' money, established its own audit services branch. We had previously shared these services with another ministry.

Our newly developed multi-year audit plan recognized the importance of the ministry's transfer payments, and a substantial amount of audit time will be devoted to these areas in the next year.

I began these remarks by referring to my ministry's new agenda. Our response to the auditor's report is part of that agenda. Problems were identified, and we have moved quickly to solve them, as we did last year with respect to lottery distributorships and Ontario Place passes, for example.

Our response today is a sincere reflection of the ongoing initiatives in my ministry to give better value for the public's money. It also reflects my ministry's fundamental goal to make the tourism and recreation systems in Ontario the best they can possibly be.

Mr. Rowe: In response to the minister's statement regarding the Provincial Auditor's report, it amazes me why the minister seems surprised. He has been there for 18 months and he now is finding out and telling us what a great job he is doing.

It is not ineligible funding that we on this side worry about; it is the lack of funding to those eligible that bothers us. Church groups and athletic associations that should be receiving funding assistance are being turned down. Programs are announced by his ministry late in the year, and then there is little or no funding in place to cover the programs.

I note with interest his statement on Ontario Place passes. For the first time in history, they now are controlled completely by political office, his office, where they were not before.

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know the statements are just arriving. They should be here momentarily.

Mr. McClellan: Sit down until they get here.

Mr. Martel: Are you going to do something? Another study?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is so nice to see my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The ink is drying. They are coming now, if I might begin. The pages are distributing them even as I begin speaking.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will proceed.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I rise to report to the Legislative Assembly on a matter I take very seriously, namely, the recent allegations of mismanagement, and perhaps even criminal activity, at the Workers' Compensation Board's medical rehabilitation centre at Downsview.

As members know, these allegations were made on Tuesday by Wally Majesky and Maria Minna, the co-chairs of the Ontario task force on the vocational rehabilitation services of the Workers' Compensation Board. The co-chairs expressed their concerns after a round of task force hearings throughout the province.

I would like to inform members that I met early today with both the task force and the management of the Workers' Compensation Board to review matters and determine a course of appropriate action.

In that connection, I have several announcements to make.

First, the office of the worker adviser will open an office at the Downsview facility as soon as is practical. This means patients will have access, right at the hospital, to people who can provide expert assistance in dealing with their concerns.

Second, Dr. Robert Elgie, the chairman of the WCB, has asked the police to conduct an investigation. Dr. Elgie has been in contact with Chief Jack Marks of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, and the investigation has begun.

Third, I wish to announce that I am appointing a five-member external review team to investigate and examine a number of matters connected with the Downsview centre. The chairman will be Vickery Stoughton, president of the Toronto Hospital, which is the amalgamation of Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital. Members are Dr.

Ralph Garber, dean of the school of social work at the University of Toronto; Angelo Persichilli, news director of Toronto's multicultural television station, CFMT, from the vocational rehabilitation task force; Edward Thornton of King City, administrator-director of the training and rehabilitation trust fund of the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183; and John D. Corrigan of Coniston, senior claims administrator and rehabilitation co-ordinator for the Ontario division of Inco Ltd.

I am asking the team to conduct a general review of the role of the Downsview rehabilitation centre, its administration, programs and systems for protecting patients' rights. I will be announcing its specific terms of reference shortly.

Finally, members may recall that several months ago I first suggested a broad external review of the Downsview rehabilitation hospital might be in order. This was at the time the WCB initiated an internal inquiry into specific allegations made by members of the Canadian Auto Workers union in Windsor. I am now making that report public.

Mr. Gillies: The announcement made by the Minister of Labour would seem to indicate that after months of winding down, the ministry has ground to a complete halt in its ability to deal with the problems of Workers' Compensation Board rehabilitation services.

In effect, what the minister has announced today is that the report put out by Dr. Kummel appears to necessitate an inquiry into the inquiry. As we see layers of inquiries, police investigations and similar studies being piled up upon each other, the minister has failed to deal with the main question.

The question is this: should the injured workers of this province, while these matters are hanging over the head of the Downsview hospital and its officials, have any confidence in that institution, and should they be required to continue to seek services there? That is the question the minister should have answered. I believe in his heart of hearts he would have known the answer is no.

Until this matter is cleared up, as an interim measure at least, the government should be allowing patients to seek services they require at hospitals in their local communities from doctors with whom they are familiar and in whom they have confidence.

I am not saying the minister should not appoint another five-man panel. This government's reaction to just about everything is to appoint another inquiry. How can the minister allow this matter to go on in the interim?

My understanding is that the minister indicated to reporters after question period yesterday that he does not have a lot of confidence in the charges that workers are making at this time; he believes they may be open to question. On balance, I have to say that when we have the number and type of complaints we are getting from injured workers throughout the province, we have to attach a lot of credibility to those complaints.

The minister should let the injured workers go somewhere they have confidence in the services and treatment they will be getting. He should clear up this mess. As my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) suggested in the House yesterday, the time has long passed when the minister has to move towards decentralizing the assessment and rehabilitation services of the board and doing something about that rats' nest the minister appears to have in Downsview.

Mr. McClellan: Thanks to, I must say, the most inadequate Minister of Labour I can recall in my time in this House, we now have the most extraordinary situation of three separate task forces commissioned by the same Minister of Labour on the same problem, the problem of the Downsview rehabilitation centre of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The first task force report, which was appropriately issued in a white cover, was conducted by none other than the director of the hospital himself into allegations against his own facility. To nobody's surprise, he found the allegations were unsubstantiated. The same day that the whitewash report is tabled in the House, the minister stands in his place and indicates a police investigation will be initiated into the affairs of the Downsview rehabilitation centre.

At the same time, the minister refuses to change the terms of reference of his own task force on vocational rehabilitation, which has asked for a mandate to investigate the Downsview rehabilitation centre. Instead, he says the allegations of the task force headed by Wally Majesky and Maria Minna are untrue. He said that yesterday in interviews in the scrum. On television, he said the allegations were untrue. The executive assistant to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board said the allegations were untrue.

He has attacked his second task force, headed by Majesky and Minna, and at the same time he has commissioned a third task force composed of five new people to study the Downsview rehabilitation centre. I suppose, if we include the police investigation, we have a fourth task force under way into the affairs of matters under the jurisdiction of this Minister of Labour.

The reality is that this is the most pathetic performance I have witnessed in this portfolio since 1975. If the minister is unable to deal with his responsibilities, he should ask to be relieved from those onerous duties.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to make a statement in my capacity as Minis