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

May 3, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

WATER RESOURCES

CARASSAUGA FESTIVAL

KOMAGATA MARU

AGRICULTURAL LAND

POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

NONPROFIT HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À BUT NON LUCRATIF

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

NONPROFIT HOUSING

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATIONS TAX

HEALTH SERVICES

RACE RELATIONS

NONPROFIT HOUSING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CREDIT CARDS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

DETROIT INCINERATOR

ST PETER’S HOSPITAL

HAZARDOUS WASTES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

LOTTERY PROFITS

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

TOBACCO TAX

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOME CARE

Mr Laughren: The Victorian Order of Nurses is in financial crisis because the Peterson government really does not support community-based services. As a direct result of chronic underfunding by the Ministry of Health, VON is now $2.5 million in deficit. The government’s unwillingness to accept full responsibility for that deficit and to negotiate an appropriate rate for 1988-89 and 1989-90 will result in VON carrying a total debt in excess of $3 million.

All of the rhetoric by this government about wanting to shift the community health care system away from institutions and more toward community-based care is just that: rhetoric and nothing more. Unless the government urgently addresses VON’s estimated $2.5-million deficit for 1988-89 alone, home nursing services in some parts of the province will have to be cut back or eliminated.

The Victorian Order of Nurses is a national, not-for-profit organization dedicated to the provision of quality and cost-effective health and related services. VON is Ontario’s largest provider of comprehensive community health care services available to over 90 per cent of Ontario’s population. Underfunding of VON services may very well result in reduced services in the home. This is a particularly important issue in northern Ontario where hospitals are fewer and farther apart and where distances in general tend to be much greater.

WATER RESOURCES

Mr Pollock: I wrote the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) on 28 March 1989 requesting a meeting with representatives of the village of Havelock to discuss the status of the municipality’s application for grant funding to assist in the development of additional water facilities. The answer I received back was that the village was attempting to find new sources of water.

This is incorrect. They have found new sources of water. The estimated costs have already been sent in to the ministry. The village council is concerned that its pumping capacity right now is overloaded and if it is a hot, dry summer, it could run into a situation of burning out its pumps. There is no way that the village of Havelock can entertain new development.

The Minister of the Environment should live up to his commitment of open government: either the minister or members of his senior staff should meet with the Havelock council to resolve this situation.

CARASSAUGA FESTIVAL

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House that it is once again time for the fourth annual Carassauga Festival. Mississauga’s multicultural celebration will be held on May 12, 13 and 14 and offers citizens the opportunity to meet the world in their own backyard.

This city-wide festival will have 13 different pavilions participating this year. They are: Assyria, Arabia, Croatia, Cyprus, England, Greece, India, Lithuania, the Philippines, Portugal, Scotland, Trinidad and Jamaica. Visitors to these pavilions will be able to experience the foods, dances, customs and various costumes of each represented country.

This annual event has been a great success in Mississauga, and most of the success is due to the wonderful volunteers on the executive of Carassauga and the many volunteers who give of their time on Carassauga weekend to staff the pavilions. I am delighted to announce that today in the House we have representation from those volunteers of Carassauga in the visitor’s gallery. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the many long hours of preparation and hard work that go into the making of this event.

As a preview to Carassauga weekend, there will be a Meet the World Week from May 8 to 11 at South Common Mall to allow residents to sample the foods and see some of the entertainment that will be featured on the weekend.

I would like to invite members of the Legislature to “Come Meet the World” on the weekend of May 12, 13 and 14 and join Mississauga in its celebration of the cultural heritage of our great city.

KOMAGATA MARU

Mr Philip: This weekend my wife, Suzanne, and I will have the honour to commemorate with many other Canadians a historical event which took place 75 years ago. The commemoration of the landing of the Komagata Maru, which will be hosted by the Ontario Council of Sikhs, reminds us of one of the more blatant instances of discrimination in our history.

The federal government of the day had passed an order in council which required immigrants to come to Canada by continuous passage. This was done to restrict the entry of people from India. None the less, a Japanese passenger ship, the Komagata Maru, managed a direct voyage and arrived in Vancouver carrying 366 British subjects of Indian origin. These people had every legal right to enter Canada.

Unfortunately, the British Columbia press reported the arrival of the ship as a “mounting oriental invasion” and the BC government was determined not to allow the passengers to land. Passengers were denied the replenishment of food and water. The ship was refused permission to dock and was surrounded by armed guards. It was ordered to return home after two months and escorted into the Pacific by the Canadian navy.

We as Canadians are often critical of racism in other countries. In commemorating the horrible events surrounding the Komagata Maru, we are reminded that we as Canadians are not free from committing offences of prejudice and racism. We must be continuously vigilant to fight prejudice and racism in our country and in ourselves.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of this assembly an editorial from the Erin Advocate of Wednesday, 19 April 1989. The headline of the editorial reads, “OMAF Sells Out”:

“The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s mandate is to keep all agricultural land for agricultural products -- that is, to protect agricultural land, especially that rated as class one.

“OMAF is supposed to oppose proposals by developers to construct buildings on prime agricultural land. It is supposed to fight to keep agricultural land in the hands of farmers.

“So why has OMAF changed its mind about the Snelgrove settlement area on Highway 10 just north of Mayfield Road in Caledon? An OMAF spokesperson confirmed that the land classification had not changed -- it is still number one agricultural land.

“However, the spokesperson said the main reason OMAF is now supporting the development of the land ... is that the economic climate of the area has changed since it first opposed the proposal.

“OMAF is selling out to developers -- selling out under economic pressure.

“Whether the economic climate of an area changes or not it doesn’t matter. Class one agricultural land should be protected or there won’t be any land left worth growing food on. And OMAF” -- and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) -- ”is supposed to help save farm land from exploitation, not help it along.”

That is the end of the editorial, but when the present Minister of Agriculture and Food was in opposition, he was opposed to this development. Why has he changed his mind?

POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY

Mr Fleet: What happened on this day 198 years ago and why is it relevant to us today? On 3 May 1791 the first constitution was declared in modern Europe which established a democratic society. Now in that same country, for the first time in decades, basic freedoms and rights that Canadians take for granted are beginning to re-emerge. I speak of events in Poland.

Polish Constitution Day is a symbol of national redemption and the indomitable strength of a people. After valiant struggles, the trade union Solidarity has been legalized. Freely contested elections for some but not all seats in the Sejm, the Polish Parliament, are scheduled next month.

This fragile reflowering of freedom is still incomplete, but let us warmly encourage its growth. Beyond our humanitarian concerns, which are themselves fundamental, the advent of democracy within Poland suggests a greater prospect for reduced east-west tension and a secure international peace.

I ask all members of this assembly to join me in saluting the democratic traditions of Polish Constitution Day.

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr McLean: My statement concerns two Ontario-based teams of athletes who swept out of Ontario and into the hearts of curling fans across Canada by proving beyond a doubt that they clearly are masters of the ice.

The Penetanguishene rink of skip Russ Howard and his teammates, vice-skip Glen Howard, second Tim Belcourt, lead Kent Carstairs and spare Larry Merkley, won its third Ontario men’s curling championship in four years last February and then went on to place second in the Canadian Labatt’s Brier the following month.

Meanwhile, the Thunder Bay rink of skip Heather Houston and her teammates, vice-skip Lorraine Lang, second Diane Adams and lead Tracy Kennedy, captured the women’s world championship in Milwaukee earlier last month with a spine-tingling eight-to-five win over Norway.

The Russ Howard and Heather Houston rinks serve as excellent examples of the fine efforts put forward by amateur athletes from throughout Ontario. They show what can be accomplished when individuals band together in competition.

On behalf of all of us, I congratulate the Russ Howard and Heather Houston rinks and thank them for serving as unofficial ambassadors of Ontario wherever they compete.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Hon Mrs Caplan: Today I am pleased to announce funding for two additional community health centres in Ontario.

As indicated in last week’s throne speech, our government is committed to providing accessible, affordable, appropriate health services for all. Expansion of the number of community health centres and health service organizations is an example of this commitment.

There are currently 15 community health centres in operation. About $15.2 million was allocated to CHCs in 1988-89, and it is estimated that roughly $23.7 million will be made available in 1989-90. Community health centres are uniquely designed to respond to specific areas or segments of the population in particular need. This can range from geriatric programs for seniors to drug education, counselling and other programs directed at our youth.

Today, we have approved the establishment of the Black Creek Community Health Centre in the northwestern

section of Metropolitan Toronto and the funding of the Teen Health Centre in Windsor, both of which will offer alcohol and drug addiction programs.

More than $1 million is being provided for the Windsor centre to serve teens and young adults. The centre has operated since 1980 and has offered services for adolescents since 1985. It has enjoyed growing support in the community from school officials, doctors, health and social service providers.

About one third of the new ministry funding being announced today will enable the centre to greatly expand its services and to relocate to a larger facility within a year. It is estimated that in three years the centre will be serving about 5,000 young people.

The centre will focus on those in the 12 to 24 age group who are in need of care or at risk of developing medical or emotional problems, such as substance abuse, eating disorders or depression. Programs will include medical treatment, addiction and health promotion counselling and community education.

The centre will be located in the Jane-Finch area at a site yet to be determined. It is expected to be in operation by October of this year and exemplifies the government’s goal to provide community-based services in neighbourhoods where they are most needed.

In addition to providing medical services with flexible hours and location, the centre will offer outreach programs such as alcohol and drug abuse counselling, parent support groups and youth workshops, as well as services to the elderly. In three years, it is projected that the centre will be serving 3,000 people, with an estimated annual budget of $861,000.

Both of these new community health centres reflect this government’s goal to provide quality health care as close to home as possible and to promote an addiction-free lifestyle among our youth.

I believe that both centres will make a significant and positive impact in these communities.

NONPROFIT HOUSING / LOGEMENTS À BUT NON LUCRATIF

Hon Ms Hošek: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to tell all members of this House about a new partnership which has just been forged between four United Church of Canada presbyteries in Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry of Housing. A few moments ago I had the honour of signing an agreement with the moderator of the United Church of Canada and officials from the four Metro presbyteries of the church which will result in the building of approximately 600 nonprofit housing units.

At this time I would like to pay tribute to the United Church moderator, Dr Sang Chul Lee, and the four presbytery chairpersons of Metro Toronto who worked so hard to make this agreement happen. They are Rev Joyce Kellmy of Toronto Scarborough; John P. Hamilton of Toronto South; Mrs Laura Eubank of Toronto Don Valley, and Rev Robert Trimble of Toronto West -- and also Rev Bob McElhinney, who is the chairperson of the interpresbytery affordable housing committee. All of them join us here today to receive the appreciation of all members.

Il me fait plaisir en particulier de faire cette annonce aujourd’hui, car cela aide à illustrer l’appui formidable de la communauté que le gouvernement reçoit, dans les efforts faits pour s’assurer que les habitants de cette province obtiennent les logements dont ils ont besoin et qu’ils méritent.

Les députés se souviennent peut-être que nous avons signé un accord semblable en décembre dernier avec l’archidiocèse catholique de Toronto. Nous avons aussi signé des accords avec plusieurs municipalités.

J’ai confiance que nous travaillerons en collaboration avec d’autres groupes religieux et organismes communautaires dans l’avenir, afin d’atteindre notre objectif commun, qui est de fournir des logements sécuritaires à prix raisonnable à tous ceux qui en ont besoin.

The agreement we signed today will result in hundreds of new housing units being built, but the activity this agreement will generate goes far beyond merely putting bricks and mortar together. It will raise awareness of our housing needs and it will illustrate that when the community works in partnership with government, we can make a difference.

An affordable housing committee has already been formed by the four presbyteries to coordinate all efforts to create and support housing initiatives. Under the agreement, this committee will immediately begin to prepare an inventory of land owned or leased by the four presbyteries and assess the suitability of that land for the development of nonprofit housing. Also, the committee will work with congregations to determine their interest in becoming sponsors of nonprofit housing and will encourage congregations to become involved in housing initiatives in various other ways.

The Ministry of Housing will help by providing funding to help build nonprofit housing through our existing programs. We will also assist in housing project development and provide support in creating educational and promotional materials to help the committee do its very important work.

In all of these activities, the interpresbytery affordable housing committee will be raising awareness of housing needs and doing something concrete to meet those needs. This agreement with the United Church represents an excellent example of religious leaders taking initiative on a matter of great importance to us all. I commend the leadership shown by the United Church and thank them sincerely for joining us here today.

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Reville: In response to the announcements today by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), may I extend the congratulations of the New Democratic Party to the citizens in the Jane-Finch area and in Windsor who, along with health care professionals, worked very hard to bring these two projects to the stage where the Ministry of Health is prepared to help them and in one case increase the funding. I would also like to congratulate the Ministry of Health because it is clearly beginning to head in the right direction in terms of community health.

I think we should note, however, that this is not a program that flows out of the throne speech. This is a previous promise to double the number of people served by community health centres and health service organizations over a period of years. I think it would be more encouraging for members of our party if we were to hear some new announcements that this government was prepared to accelerate the progress towards serving more people by community health centres.

Because a number of the programs offered by the two centres will attempt to address the severe problems faced by youth who abuse alcohol and drugs, it is with some sadness that I say we have not made nearly enough progress in this regard either. While these programs will indeed be welcome, there still remains a very severe shortage of residential treatment beds for youth suffering from problems associated with alcohol and drug abuse. We hope that very soon we will hear some further announcements from the Ministry of Health in that regard.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I want to take just 10 seconds to tell the Minister of Health that we appreciate the community health centre announcement in Windsor. I think this announcement actually flowed from the promise Larry Grossman made when he was Minister of Health. It has been in the planning stage for six or seven years, so I would like to say to the minister that we will believe her commitment to community health if she proceeds with the major proposal by the Windsor and District Labour Council for a health service organization that will be all-encompassing. If she comes forward with that one quickly, then we will know she supports community health.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr Breaugh: I want to congratulate those members of the United Church community who have entered into this agreement today. I know, as all of us who are interested in the field of affordable housing would know, that 600 units will not resolve the problem that faces us, but it is encouraging to see different church and community groups come forward with their portion of what can be done to resolve a very vexing problem. I congratulate those who take such initiatives.

I urge now that everyone in Ontario who is in a position to assist to do so, whether it is by means of making use of lands they have to a better degree or simply encouraging others in their own community to take the same kind of steps as they have taken, and to do so on a scale that would be unprecedented in the life and history of this province.

The great challenge for governments, of course, will be to support those community groups, those church groups, which like the United Church today have said: “We’ve got something that could help. We have some land. We have some ability. We have some initiative. With some assistance on the part of government, we can play our role in resolving an affordable housing crisis.”

Each member here will know that in his or her own community there are groups that could do exactly the same thing. If all of us work together, perhaps we can resolve this, not quickly and not tomorrow, but we can make sure that in this rich society in which we live, the obscenity of poverty and people not having a decent place to live can be obliterated.

I congratulate those who have taken that initiative today but I lay down for them and the minister the greater challenge. The problem remains and a press conference will not resolve it. It will take a great deal of work, a great deal of initiative and a great deal of imagination on the part of all of us to resolve it. I hope we do that.

Mr Harris: I too want to congratulate those officials of the United Church who are in the chamber today for coming forward and playing their role in helping all of us address a very serious situation, a situation that most of us, in a province as wealthy as Ontario, find most distressing and indeed intolerable. I offer my congratulations on behalf of my party.

I indicate to the House some very gentle criticism to the minister, the Ministry of Housing and the officials with whom these ladies and gentlemen will have to deal over the next period, hopefully of not so many years, both provincially and federally.

I offer, by example, my congratulations to Emmanuel United Church. After a period of three or four years of struggle, most of it dealing with the bureaucracy and with government, it got its initiative, its assisted housing projects, off the ground. One of them, which we are very proud of in North Bay, opened some two years ago. The number of units escapes me but it is in the order of 50 or 60, so for North Bay it is actually very significant when you look at equivalent populations.

Had the congregation, had those who spearheaded the project on behalf of that church on Lakeshore Drive in North Bay, had those dedicated people not been so dedicated, had they been easily discouraged, they would have walked away from the project many times over. It took interminable meetings with the bureaucracies, both federally and provincially, and with the politicians to finally get through all of the approvals process necessary.

I congratulate as well in my riding -- I point out another example -- St John’s Anglican Church. Just a few months ago, we had the official opening. It went through similar experiences. They met in my office on probably half a dozen occasions, throwing their hands up in the air and saying: “We’re trying to provide this housing. As our member, why is it that the very governments that announce the programs, that take the credit” -- that is fair politics – “and have the glossy brochures are the impediments to this project?”

I issue that challenge to the minister to try to improve upon that. I offer my congratulations and hope that the dedication of those involved will carry through these projects from announcement stage to official opening. If the track record is any experience, I will probably be in government by the time we get them open and I will be delighted to be there at the opening.

I finally point out to the minister that on page 4 she indicates her ministry will “provide support in creating educational and promotional materials to help the committee do its very important work.” I ask the minister, in a very serious way, to help the group do its work by facilitating the myriad of civil servants and ministries it will have to work through between now and opening day of these projects.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have some questions again today for the Premier on the subject of his meeting with Envacc Resources. I notice that on the public record is a statement from the minutes of the meeting the Premier held with Envacc in June 1988 that it is his view the company should proceed with contacting the municipalities, and according to the Globe and Mail the Premier commented favourably on the makeup of the company and was “impressed that Marco” -- meaning Marco Muzzo -- ”was involved.” The statement that is on the record from the minutes of Envacc Resources has never been denied by the Premier.

When the Premier made that comment, or is quoted as making that comment, I wonder if he was aware of the fact that Mr Muzzo was a very prominent witness and indeed was named on a number of occasions in the now well-known Waisberg Royal Commission on Certain Sectors of the Building Industry, which I am sure the Premier will recall was a very important event in the 1970s.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: Was the Premier aware when he made that comment about Mr Muzzo’s involvement in Envacc Resources that Mr Muzzo is quoted on page 113 of this royal commission as saying:

“Counsel: ‘So you were not opposed to the general practice of bribery; you were only concerned about whether it worked or not?’

“Mr Muzzo: ‘That is right.’”

Is the Premier aware of that statement by Mr Muzzo?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have encountered the gentleman on a couple of occasions in my life and I am not aware of any of that.

Mr B. Rae: Was the Premier aware that Judge Waisberg, in his account of the events in the building industry taking place throughout the 1970s, found that there was a pattern of price-fixing in the drywall industry in particular, that there were several meetings held between a number of drywall contractors of which Mr Muzzo was part, and that on pages 232 to 239 of the Waisberg royal commission it is made very clear that Mr Muzzo was attending meetings at which there were discussions of price-fixing and that there were discussions directly about combinations which would have the effect of fixing prices in the industry? Was the Premier aware of Mr Muzzo’s involvement in that regard?

Hon Mr Peterson: No, I know nothing of his background.

Mr B. Rae: These are all a matter of public record. They are a matter of the findings of a royal commission in this province that took place over a decade ago. They are a matter of profound public policy.

I wonder if the Premier, in light of this, would not now question his own encouragement to this company and can he confirm, and is it in fact the case, that the Premier indicated that this group, of which Mr Muzzo was at that time a very major financial backer, should proceed with contacting the municipalities? Why would the Premier have given that advice, given the kind of record Mr Muzzo had over a decade ago?

Hon Mr Peterson: I give any group that is interested the same advice. I have met with other groups. I say: “The regions will make the decision. If you’ve got some ideas, go and discuss it with them.” There are no secrets in this matter and whatever is done will all be tendered and there for everyone to see. I say the same thing to everyone.

CORPORATIONS TAX

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer. In the last number of years, the Treasurer has either followed in lockstep the efforts by the Minister of Finance to give tax breaks to corporations or has in fact gone even further. Given that we now know there are well over 80,000 companies in Canada -- of which we can assume about 40 per cent are in Ontario -- that do not pay any tax and that Mr Wilson has once again failed to introduce a minimum corporate tax, can we have the assurance from the Treasurer that at least this year he will finally introduce a minimum corporate tax for Ontario’?

Hon R. F. Nixon: It being within a couple of weeks of budget time, I think this is an inappropriate time for me to make any specific responses to the honourable member. I think, however, he is aware that we have a capital tax in this jurisdiction which is designed to allow or require corporations to make contributions to the provincial Treasury based on their paid-up capital and irrespective of their reported profits.

Mr B. Rae: The capital tax in this province, which is the financial capital of Canada, is the second lowest in this country, as the Treasurer no doubt will be aware. I wonder if he can tell us what arguments he would have now against the introduction of a minimum corporate tax. Ronald Reagan introduced such a tax in the United States. There are thousands of corporations making money in Ontario that are not paying any corporations tax. Can the Treasurer tell us what are the arguments now against a minimum corporate tax in Ontario?

Hon R. F. Nixon: We feel the corporations are paying a reasonable share of the revenue into the province. One of the reasons we make that judgement is that the proof is in the pudding. We have the largest corporations in the nation and the most rapidly growing. This is an atmosphere, which the member may object to, that actually creates an opportunity for investment from all over the world, as well as from other areas in Canada. It provides the jobs all of us are extremely interested in and provides a substantial amount of revenue to the provincial Treasury.

Mr B. Rae: If the Treasurer thinks the share is so fair, can he tell us why it is that 20 years and 25 years ago corporations were paying as a proportion of revenues raised, federally and provincially, more in relation to the income tax than they are paying today? There has been a redistribution of wealth in this province, as there has been federally, away from ordinary taxpayers to corporations that already are doing very well.

Why will the Treasurer not put a minimum tax on those corporations that are making money and are profitable? There are tens of thousands of those corporations in this province that are not paying a nickel.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: Does he not think it is time they paid their share?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon R. F. Nixon: One of the main reasons that, for example, the personal income tax is so productive in this jurisdiction is that we have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, now substantially below five per cent, and in many communities of Ontario there really is no unemployment at all.

The second thing is that our salary and wage rates, while they are never high enough, whether it is those of members of the Legislature or anybody else who is working for a living, are at relatively high levels. This too is extremely productive. For that reason, all of us, as the members of the working body of Ontario, contribute an extremely large proportion of the revenues for the province. We are quite proud of the fact that the buoyancy in the economy here has magnified and focused that in the last four years.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. I want to return to the question we raised yesterday in the Legislature in connection with some of the changes the minister is making in the health system. The minister in fact made an announcement two years ago to the effect that in the Ottawa-Carleton area there would be seven capital projects that would proceed at a cost of some $140 million, that would add a number of additional beds to that community and would provide additional psychiatric services as well as some clinic services that were required for the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Because of the institutional problems we have in our health care system, such as Ottawa-Carleton being near 100 per cent capacity in terms of bed use, will the minister confirm that those seven projects worth $140 million are going to proceed?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the leader of the third party would know, on numerous occasions in this House and extensively during the estimates discussion we discussed the fact that the capital planning process is under review in light of the changing demographics in the province, the changing technologies which are allowing services to be provided in alternative ways and because of our commitment to expand community-based facilities.

Mr Brandt: Only one of the seven projects is even at the tendering stage and even that project has had the number of beds proposed reduced rather substantially. I would be quite surprised to hear from the minister that the demographics and the technology have changed so rapidly within the last two years that she is now moving aside these particular major projects that were announced, and are anticipated and expected by that community.

Really, all I am asking is, does the minister plan on proceeding and, if not, what does she plan on replacing the need in that community with in order to offset the current health crunch it has in terms of bed use in the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The leader of the third party raises a very important point. He knows many health planners are suggesting that technology has had the kind of impact which would allow some 30 to 50 per cent of all procedures presently done on an inpatient basis to be done on an outpatient basis. As he would know, recently we have been reviewing our projects to give priority to ambulatory centres such as the one in Hamilton and he knows as well that there is one in Ottawa which has been approved to go to tender.

Mr Brandt: I am still having trouble getting my question answered; that is, of $140 million and a series of 200 or 300 beds that have been proposed, many of which are in the acute care area, seven projects, is the minister prepared to commit to this House that she is going to proceed with those projects as she indicated two years ago; or, alternatively, is she saying that some community-based facilities are going to be used as an option to replace that very good plan she announced two years ago?

Either she is going ahead with the plan of two years ago or she has another plan now as a result of alternatives, technological changes, new innovative measures. I would like to hear what those are. It is going to be one or the other. The Ottawa-Carleton area wants to know.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I have been to Ottawa on a number of occasions and met with the district health council, leadership of the health care community. They know how important it is that we assess the needs today to make sure that before we put a shovel in the ground we are planning for the future. I want to assure the honourable member that this is exactly what we are doing.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Jackson: I have a question of the Premier. This morning at around eight o’clock, a large number of members of this Legislative Assembly from all sides of this House met at the Royal York Hotel for the 20th anniversary Ontario Prayer Breakfast. We met in a nonpartisan way. We met for fellowship and prayer for this province and its political leaders. At that time the Premier made a welcoming statement on behalf of this province and he stated a rather unusual comment. I would like to quote directly from his statement. He indicated that “discrimination against minority groups is all too common in our schools.”

Could the Premier please substantiate these serious allegations and, if not, would he please withdraw the charges?

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend raises a serious question in a most inappropriate way, in my opinion. I think my honourable friend opposite says it best when he calls it cheap. I agree with that, but I am used to that.

My honourable friend will be aware that we have seen examples of discrimination in this community and across this province. I and others have talked about the mood in this country right now that tends to be less tolerant of minorities. I am sure my honourable friend has seen that. Some of my colleagues and other premiers talk about the atmosphere in their own provinces.

Those of us who care about nation-building and believe -- and I am sure my honourable friend opposite does care about the traditions of tolerance and understanding, charity and indeed love that we have in this country, which are the founding principles -- that it is important to constantly restate those on a nonpartisan basis. This not a partisan issue, as my honourable friend says, it is an issue that transcends partisanship. But I think it would be naïve to sit here and pretend that everything is in perfect working order.

We are all striving towards ideals and one is racial tolerance in all of our institutions -- in our governments, in our schools, in our businesses and every governing institution that we have. To pretend it does not exist I think is naïve. At the same time I think we can collectively articulate a sense of purpose with hope and can build a better community. [Applause]

Mr Jackson: All members of this House would agree that this is a sensitive issue and it should be handled with the utmost delicacy in terms of any comments and public statements that are made.

I would ask the Premier specifically if he is able to make such sweeping generalizations about the fact that discrimination may be on the rise. His exact words were, “on the increase in this province, and specifically in our schools.” If he is able to make that statement, would he please substantiate and give evidence as to where specifically this is happening; and if it is, to his knowledge, what are we doing about it?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think my honourable friend makes a mistake of judgement in trying to turn this into a partisan issue or trying to embarrass me or someone else. Believe me, he cannot embarrass me on this. This is beyond individual embarrassment. This is something that all society has to be involved in.

I think my honourable friend the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) and others talked yesterday about the increases for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, something we all believe in. The Minister of Education (Mr Ward) has talked about programs in our schools. We have talked about programs in the civil service and many others that try to build the ideal of fairness that we all value so very much.

I am not going to answer your next supplementary. Let us leave this on a high note, not on a low note. I want to invite my friend to assist all the other members of this Legislature in trying to achieve that goal together. Let us not cheapen it.

Mr Jackson: Thank you. The fact of the matter remains that we have had some appropriate and necessary improvements on this sensitive issue of race relations. This month the Toronto Board of Education is celebrating 10 years of its commitment to outstanding race relation policies. What we are finding unusual is a comment that, in fact, we have a discriminatory attitude growing in our schools. That is what the Premier has indicated.

My point to the Premier is, quite frankly, that unsubstantiated comments about discrimination in this province only breed the very kind of intolerance that we are trying to overcome.

Will the Premier please indicate to this House whether or not there has been -- and he can substantiate it -- an increase in the incidence of discrimination in our school system? Is it the trustees’ problem or the teachers’ problem? What is --

The Speaker: Order. Mr Premier? No response.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I know the minister is aware of a project in London, Ontario, called Country Lane Gardens. I know her staff is aware there is a proposal by Kippslane Co-operative to solve a pretty vexing problem.

The minister may know that this particular project is one of those hidden condominiums. The tenants have been given notice to vacate the premises by 1 June. They formed their own co-operative and read all of the ministry’s directives. For example, they see that they qualify clearly under the Homes Now program for funding. They can bring the project in at $300,000, under the maximum approved limit. They can provide affordable housing now, but they need an answer by 10 May.

They have an owner of the development who is prepared to co-operate and to sell. They have a co-operative in place and operative now. They need financing from the ministry. They are told they would get money if they would build a new project, but they cannot get funding for the existing project. Can the minister explain to them why she refuses to help them make that a viable, affordable housing proposition now?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite will know that in our nonprofit housing program, what we have done is indicate that we are prepared both to build new nonprofit housing and also to allow groups to buy existing housing. But in order to do that, we have to believe that the capital costs are reasonable and, in fact, make sense. Our analysis of that particular project is that the cost of acquisition plus the cost of repair to bring the building up to adequate standards is very high. It is for that reason that we are looking seriously at it, but are also concerned about the costs involved.

There are many opportunities we are involved with right now in building nonprofit housing all over the province and in acquiring buildings, but in order to do that we have to be convinced that it makes economic as well as social sense to balance those two, in some cases, conflicting issues. That is what we are discussing right now.

Mr Breaugh: Perhaps the ministry can build a new unit in a city like London for less than $69,500, but I doubt it. Perhaps the minister can put together a proposal that is $300,000 less than her own approved limit, but I doubt it.

Could the minister not use a little bit of common sense and give them an answer by their deadline, which is 10 May, that their proposal -- which is sensible, rational, in place, ready to go and would resolve an affordable housing crisis now -- can proceed; or would she really rather see those tenants evicted by 1 June? What is the minister’s choice?

Hon Ms Hošek: I like to take the advice of the member opposite and so I will take his advice. We will be using our common sense and our rationality to make the best decision we know how. Let me say that we already have about 17,600 units out there allocated for being built. We have greatly increased the number of units. There are many homes out there that this province has been involved in building, as the member opposite knows because he goes to the openings of the buildings in his own riding and he knows there are people living in them right now.

We are building more and there have been many allocated in London. We will use our common sense to make the best decision possible in this case, with all the information available to us about the costs and the benefits in this case.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions and it has to do with auto insurance. It is really a repeat of a question I asked last week which he declined to answer. It has to do with how his ministry is prepared to deal with the possibility of a significant increase in referrals from insurance companies in the Metropolitan Toronto area to the Facility Association. He has had a week to reflect upon it or to develop one of his infamous instant policies. I wonder if he could respond to it today.

Hon Mr Elston: We do not develop instant policies in the fashion that a would-be leadership hopeful for the Progressive Conservative Party would. I can tell the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville that I am not prepared to develop instant policies. That is why we have on reference now issues concerning the new product reform opportunities that are in front of us with respect to insurance for all Ontario consumers.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that if he has particular cases, I am prepared to receive them and review them. If that is his supplementary, I am prepared to accept his supplementary and look into it as best I can if he can give me the details.

Mr Runciman: My instant policies do not cost the taxpayers of this province $7 million or the insurance companies $250 million.

Obviously, again, the minister does not have a plan. He is continually flying by the seat of his pants with respect to auto insurance in this province. I want to give him some statistics which he apparently is unaware of. In the first three months of 1988, versus the first three months of 1989 -- this is prior to his flip-flop of a couple of weeks ago -- the facility has seen a 95 per cent increase in applications. Just to name a few, CIGNA, Advocate General, Upper Canada, Economical, Eaton’s, Co-operators and Lloyd’s of London are now no longer writing automobile insurance policies for Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister could be faced with a very serious problem. Obviously he has no plan; no way to deal with this. If he does, tell us about it.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman indicates that there has been about a 95 per cent increase. I can tell the honourable gentleman that represents less than three per cent of the Ontario automobile insurance marketplace. In relation to what he is trying to do, which is to create out of this issue a very serious, huge and insurmountable problem, it is not that way at all.

What I am trying to do is not a patchwork sort of dealing with instances like this but looking at it from an overall approach where we take a peek at what is being provided and what is required by the consumers in relation to automobile insurance and addressing it in that instance.

I agree with the honourable gentleman that there has been some increase in the use of the facility and that continues to be of interest to us, but I can tell the honourable gentleman that in terms of insurance product services throughout Ontario, we are working very hard on the product reform which will provide the fair and proper product for the people of the province, as he, I am sure, wants to join me in providing to the people of Ontario.

CREDIT CARDS

Ms Collins: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently I received a letter from a constituent who is extremely upset about solicitations mailed to her son from American Express. Her son is a full-time university student with no income.

The letter from American Express states: “Right now, as a university student you are in a special position... With this offer you can get the American Express right now...”

It goes on to say: “You need to show funds from one of several verifiable income sources. It could be a full-time summer or part-time job, a savings account or trust fund, a student grant or from your parents.”

There is not one indication as to the amount of interest which is charged by the company when someone fails to pay unpaid balances. My question is, why are credit card companies such as American Express allowed to solicit students who have no visible means of income, suggesting that parents’ income or government grants be used?

Hon Mr Wrye: I thank the honourable member for the question and also for sending across to me a copy of the letter that she has just read a portion of into the record.

Certainly the whole area of solicitation, whether it is by mail, such as in this case, or telemarketing -- telephone solicitation -- is one which we are examining very closely as we begin to review consumer protection laws in this province. Certainly the member speaks to an area of particular sensitivity in raising the issue of credit. It will be one area that we are looking at and seeing whether we should be, at least, at a very minimum, moving to optimum levels of disclosure.

The member should be aware of two things: first of all, there is a federal-provincial group which is now working on the issue of cost of credit and developing regulations in that regard; second, we already have taken some initiatives. In the past, the issue of unsolicited credit cards arriving at one’s home was a major issue, and in amendments to the Consumer Protection Act some years ago that issue was dealt with. So it is certainly within our power to take some action and we are looking at what appropriate measure of intervention is necessary.

Ms Collins: Given the debt load of the average citizen and the difficulties that some people have when they are uninformed and go into debt, would the minister consider eliminating this kind of misleading advertising by making it mandatory that solicitations by credit card companies clearly state all costs associated with using their services?

Hon Mr Wrye: Really, I guess there are two issues here. First of all, I think we have to ask ourselves what the policy initiatives should be, and that is the issue I dealt with in answer to the first question: whether one ought to have disclosure or simply take even stronger measures. But the second issue is one of whether this is actually misleading.

I appreciate receiving this letter. It will be given to the registrar, who will have a look at it to see whether it is misleading. There is a possibility, and it often turns out that rather than being misleading, one would simply say that this letter is incomplete in that it does not disclose to the potential credit card user that there are fees and that there are, in effect, fines through interest charges for unpaid bills.

But we will take a look at this specific American Express initiative for students and see whether there is something that goes beyond being incomplete and gets into the realm of being misleading.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment in relation to the answer he gave yesterday in this House to the question from the member for Port Arthur (Mr Kozyra) regarding the class environmental assessment hearings in Thunder Bay into timber management.

In that answer, the minister indicated the hearings were going on much longer than anticipated because many people wanted to make presentations. Is the minister not aware that the reason the hearings have gone on so long now is because of the extensive amount of evidence presented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and that they have now covered only about 11 panels of the anticipated 17 and have taken up the total amount of time the board expected to go for the full hearing?

If that is the case, can he confirm the government will be allocating more money for interveners, to the extent of $300,000 to $350,000 at least, by the end of this month so they will not have to withdraw from the hearings before they can present their own evidence?

Hon Mr Bradley: As I indicated in my response to the member for Port Arthur yesterday, it is my anticipation this matter will be finalized in the very near future. Both the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) and I have identified the fact that a number of people who have made representations believe that further funding will be necessary to continue the case.

The member is correct in noting that much of the evidence provided has been by the Ministry of Natural Resources which, I understand from the minister, wishes to present as much information as possible so that people will be aware of what the ministry is doing and will be able to critique it or compliment it, whatever they see fit, in the hearing.

I want to assure the member that I anticipate there will be continued intervener funding. I am not in a position to say the amount in the House at this time, but we do recognize that there have been a number of submissions made to both Natural Resources and Environment in that regard.

Mr Wildman: If the minister is not at this point able to confirm the $350,000 figure, can he assure the House that the amount allocated will be commensurate with the additional funding the Ministry of Natural Resources itself has spent? Is he not aware that by the end of this fiscal year, the ministry will have spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 million alone on these hearings? If that is the case, how can the minister not provide enough intervener funding, similar to what has been provided for the Ontario Waste Management Corp. hearings where 10 times as much has been allocated for interveners as in this case?

Hon Mr Bradley: I think we are talking about separate and different kinds of hearings, and I know one will draw conclusions or comparisons as one sees fit.

I think the member, along with a number of other members, is concerned that those who wish to intervene will be able to do so with adequate expert assistance, not that they do not have some of that themselves but certainly there are costs to be incurred. The Minister of Natural Resources wanted to ensure that as much information was put out as possible, and yes, that does require an allocation of funds from that ministry to ensure that happens. I think the minister would say that if he did not provide this kind of information, there might be criticism.

I want to assure the member that both the Minister of Natural Resources and I are aware of the needs that have been brought to our attention. We want to ensure people have sufficient funds to carry out the responsibilities. Of course, the Environmental Assessment Board itself, through a separate panel, will allocate how much goes to each group. I want to assure him, as I did the member for Port Arthur, that we will have a decision in the very near future. I do not like to make announcements before my colleagues have had the opportunity to process these matters.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr McLean: I have a question that is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. I have a letter from him dated 17 April in which he indicates that funding is no longer available under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons. As he knows, this program is supposed to provide the necessary financial means to enable disabled individuals to live comfortably in their homes.

A constituent of mine applied under this program so he could add a special shower and toilet unit as well as a sink to his room at home. This constituent will be released from the Lyndhurst Hospital at the end of May and the best the minister can offer is to tell him to wait: “We’re out of funds. They’ll become available next year.” How can the minister be out of funds 17 days into the new year?

Hon Mr Mancini: I want to let the honourable member know that I was speaking about the last fiscal year, which ended 31 March. If the letter conveyed any other view, then I apologize to the member. The member will have to wait, as will all other members of the Legislature, until the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) brings down his budget. Then the budget will be expanded upon by other ministers as to how their programs will be operated.

The member may recall that yesterday or the day before the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) indicated to the House the large number of people who have been assisted over the past year or two. The program has had a very serious uptake, and yes, there is a waiting list.

Mr McLean: I have a supplementary. The minister dated the letter he wrote to me 17 April, which was well into the new year. I do not know why he would indicate to me on that day that he was out of funds, when it was 17 days into the new year.

I also got a letter from the minister just this week with regard to National Access Awareness Week. How can the ministry possibly afford to spend money on advertising and making this awareness week when it has no funds to help the disabled? I understand the situation with regard to the people, that the ministry has helped some 750 across the province, but I understand there are also about another 700 on the waiting list. What are we going to do to get help for these people who are disabled and need help now?

NATUROPATHY

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is for the Minister of Health. The recently released report by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy sets out a vision of health for Ontario. It sees an Ontario where people live longer and disease and disability are progressively reduced. The report establishes five goals necessary to achieve that vision, the first of which is to shift the emphasis of health care in Ontario to health promotion and disease prevention.

Philosophically, a good example of this is naturopathy, which seeks to promote lifestyle and preventive measures against disease, but the recently released health professions legislation review has caused a degree of confusion in the field of naturopathy, some being concerned that they will be charged with practising medicine without a licence. I would like to be able to assure them that is not the case.

Can the minister update the House on the impact of the health professions legislation review and what it will be on the future of naturopathy in the province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: For the information of the member, the health professions legislation review was tabled in this House and is currently under review. I have made a commitment to meet with all those groups affected by the legislative proposals. The position I have taken is that I will be asking the questions, what is in the public interest and what will offer protection to the public?

I would say to the member that the health professions legislation review has not recommended a legislative framework or self-governance for naturopathy. However, even without a legislative framework or regulatory status, naturopaths would be able to continue practising their profession in Ontario.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I take it then the minister will be meeting with the Ontario Naturopathic Association. Will she be discussing these matters and the proposed deregulation with them at that time?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Yes. For the information of the member, there are a number of professions not currently regulated or within the legislative framework, for example, marriage and family therapy, shiatsu therapy, acupuncture and psychoanalysis, just to name a few. As I have said, I will be meeting with all those groups affected by the legislation and have committed to meet with the representatives of the naturopathic profession as well, to hear from them their response to the legislative proposals of Mr Schwartz and the HPLR.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162. On 18 April, the standing committee on resources development finished its last public hearing on the bill. Over 330 groups and individuals came before us to talk about the bill. Many more would have come before us, but the Liberal members on the committee blocked every motion we put forward to extend the hearings.

I would recall that the Liberal government insisted that every doctor who wanted to be heard on Bill 94 would be heard, and that did occur. The overwhelming majority of the groups that came before us said the bill could not be fixed or amended, but should be scrapped. I want to ask the minister if it is his intention now to do the decent thing and withdraw Bill 162.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am interested in the statistics the member for Sudbury East has provided to the House in her question. My own understanding is that the hearings were very successful. A wide variety of views were expressed and indeed, notwithstanding the motions she or others apparently made every day for extension of the hearings, virtually all members of the committee felt that notwithstanding that the briefs were good, solid and well researched, by the time the hearings were coming to an end the submissions were getting somewhat repetitive.

We will be looking at and analysing those submissions within the ministry, as I am sure all the members of the resources development committee will be doing and have been doing, as the bill moves to its next phase, which is clause-by-clause in the committee.

Miss Martel: I am sorry if the Liberal members of that committee found it repetitive, but I guess they did not want to hear what the good people had to say, which was to scrap the bill. The ministry spent some $46,000 of taxpayers’ money producing a pamphlet entitled Reforming Workers’ Compensation in Ontario, wherein it said: “These changes” -- that is, Bill 162 -- ”are the result of a great deal of study. The government talked to representatives of labour, business and injured workers themselves to put together a plan for a better, fairer system of workers’ compensation. All of the changes are included in Bill 162.”

In fact, not one employer, labourer, injured workers’ group or legal clinic could say when they were before us that they had in any way been consulted by his ministry before this bill was introduced. There was no consultation, and in fact this pamphlet is grossly misleading. I want to ask the minister, given that there was no consultation, will he withdraw the bill and begin a process of real consultation with all of the stakeholders involved in this important issue?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I do not know about the use of the word “misleading” by the member for Sudbury East, but let me tell her just how inconsistent her position has been over the course of the last several months. She is the one who at one and the same time has argued in this place that the bill must be immediately scrapped, and almost in the same breath, has argued that the public hearings must go on ad infinitum. I do not see how those two positions can ever be resolved.

Let me tell the member for Sudbury East about consultation. The issue of the permanent partial disability system under the Workers’ Compensation Act has been the subject of debate in this House and the subject of three reports to government, each of which has had the broadest base of consultation imaginable, culminating in a third report prepared by Dr Paul Weiler on the whole question of permanent partial disability. Similarly, the issue of rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation in particular, has been the subject in this province of a very extensive consultation process culminating in the report of Maria Minna and Wally Majesky.

The consultation continued through the public hearings. I am satisfied that as a result of that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Cunningham: My question today is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have all heard the minister’s government on numerous occasions publicly state that it is committed to deinstitutionalization. If the minister is really committed to fulfilling this promise, why are so many families with disabled children being forced to consider placing their children in institutions because the necessary home support program is simply not available?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be well aware of the fact that we have a number of programs out there to assist parents who have made a personal decision to keep their children at home. The additional sums of money and resources we have made available have gone up every single year. We are now at close to -- I cannot remember the exact figure, but the number is fairly significant.

As the member will realize, the difficulty is that we have also indicated we want to broaden that support, not only to families that have developmentally handicapped children but also to those same families whose handicapped children become adults and to families who have physically handicapped children. We are not going to take away in any way from the first group, but obviously we cannot keep adding to that one and not do anything for the other two.

Therefore, we have said to the first group of families: “We will continue to provide service for you. We ask you to continue to access a whole range of services that are out in the community above and beyond what we are able to provide, but also to recognize that if physically handicapped --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mrs Cunningham: We certainly commend the minister’s record. The number he was looking for, quite frankly, is $111 million. It is substantial --

Hon Mr Bradley: Mike Harris says, “Save money.”

Mrs Cunningham: -- but it is a very difficult thing, I say to the Minister of the Environment, for parents to have to go to area offices and to ask for support so that they can stay home with their children or keep their children in their own homes.

During the estimates we realized the government withdrew funding that amounted to some $2.5 million from this program. It is not a lot but it would help. What we would like the minister to do today is to assure us that at least $2.5 million will be put back into the program, plus the regular inflationary increase. Would he commit in this House today to do that?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I can assure the honourable member the budget for the program for the three groups I have just identified will be significantly higher than that again.

DETROIT INCINERATOR

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment will know that the Detroit incinerator is a matter of continuing concern to the residents of my city, the city of Windsor. The Detroit incinerator is the largest incinerator in North America and when fully operational will handle 2,000 tons of garbage per day and dump emissions upon our city which we are not pleased with.

The incinerator is now fully constructed and residents of the city of Windsor would like some assurance from the minister that he has not given up in his pursuit of the best available technology for this plant. What can the minister tell the residents of Windsor in this regard?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member may recall that on 15 April 1987, the Ministry of the Environment filed suit in the Michigan state court to force Detroit to install what we call state-of-the-art pollution control technology on the proposed incinerator. As the member has pointed out, the Detroit incinerator is being built with only electrostatic precipitators. We believe the scrubber baghouse technology is far superior to that and I certainly indicated that to the mayor of Detroit in a meeting with him.

As the member may be aware, the suit was moved to federal district court and was dismissed by a Reagan-appointed judge on 25 February 1988. The ministry went through the procedure of appealing the federal court judge’s decision to dismiss the case and sought leave to return the case to the Michigan state court.

Mr M. C. Ray: Can the minister, therefore, please now tell us what is the status of that lawsuit by the Ontario government against Michigan authorities?

Hon Mr Bradley: We have just learned that the appeal court has found in our favour. In a strongly worded two-to-one decision, the appeal court, I am informed, reversed the federal district judge’s ruling that the Michigan court did not have jurisdiction, as Ontario had asked. The appeal court vacated the judge’s dismissal of our original suit, as Ontario had asked, and the appeal court instructed Judge Hackett to send our suit back to state court which, of course, is where Ontario originally filed the suit.

This, in my view, is an important step in the right direction in this battle to ensure that the people of Essex county and Windsor are not subjected to the kinds of emissions we believe they would be if only an electrostatic precipitator were used in that incinerator.

ST PETER’S HOSPITAL

Mr Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding St Peter’s Hospital in Hamilton. The minister will be aware that St Peter’s is the only chronic care hospital in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. Some 24 months ago, the hospital made submissions to her ministry regarding the need for enhanced funding requirements to bring St Peter’s Hospital up to the same level as other chronic hospitals in the province.

The minister will be aware that during the 24 months since that original submission, there have been various contacts with her ministry, including the ministry having sent in patient care consultants. The recommendations made by those patient care consultants strongly supported the position of the hospital in terms of its requirements for enhanced funding. The ministry directed the hospital to submit a budget and a critical path to implement the recommendations of the patient care consultants.

On 27 April, the minister informed the hospital that it would be receiving only 19 per cent of the money it requires in each of the next two years. Can the minister explain to the House, when she has said here on a consistent basis that her prime concern is patient care, how she can so blatantly ignore the recommendations of her patient care consultants?

Hon Mrs Caplan: For the information of the member for Hamilton Mountain, he would be interested to know that St Peter’s Hospital, which provides quality care to patients and residents in the Hamilton area, received a three-year accreditation in April 1989, along with praise from the independent accreditation surveyors. I would quote that they were “a model geriatric and teaching unit.”

I would say to him that some time ago the ministry received a request from the hospital for approximately $1 million. That request, over the course of time, had increased. I spoke directly with the board chairman and told him they would be receiving slightly over a $1-million base increase over the next two years. While everyone would like to have more, we believe this will go a significant way in expanding its services in the areas of physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, as well as nursing clinical specialists.

St Peter’s plays an important role in Hamilton, and the member would do it a disservice by suggesting that it provides other than quality patient care, because it provides fine care to the residents in its charge.

Mr Allen: The minister is weaving and dodging her way through the statistics. The simple fact is that the gap between that hospital and its peer hospitals in other communities is such that St Peter’s can offer, in comparison to them, 60 minutes less of services and care per day. What the minister has provided by a 19 per cent add-on is only 10 minutes’ makeup of that 60-minute gap.

How does the minister really expect St Peter’s and Hamiltonians to accept that kind of discriminatory response from the Minister of Health?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think the question by the member opposite does a disservice to the quality care provided by St Peter’s Hospital. I would repeat again that an independent accreditation team suggested it was a model geriatric facility and teaching unit and gave it a three-year accreditation.

We are working with the hospital to provide for additional staffing and additional programming, given available resources. We are making progress in working together. Yes, I would say to him that we have worked co-operatively and will continue to do so.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The Paudash Lake Cottage Association is concerned about uranium pilings. They have asked both the federal Minister of the Environment and the provincial minister about these pilings.

The federal government has committed its money for this particular study. When is the minister going to commit the money for this particular study?

Hon Mr Bradley: It seems to me that we funded the first phase of this particular project, if my recollection is correct, and that we have been involved and have been providing assistance in terms of ministry staff expertise and so on.

The member would be aware that the preeminent responsibility, when dealing with radioactive waste, is in fact with the federal government. We have, as I say, for some period of time attempted to work with them to assess the degree of the problem. I have communicated directly by letter with some of the member’s constituents in this matter. We are there to help out in whatever way we can and I anticipate we will continue to help out in that way.

Mr Pollock: The information I have is that they have got no funding at all for any particular study. That is a major concern to me. I do not know how dangerous these pilings are. I would hope the ministry would do everything it could to relieve the fears of the Paudash Lake Cottage Association.

If the minister has any information I certainly hope he would forward it to me and keep me informed about this particular situation. Has the ministry never been involved in any of these studies in regard to uranium tailings and that sort of thing?

Hon Mr Bradley: We have on an ongoing basis been involved. As I say, we have a good degree of co-operation with the federal government in matters of these kinds. The member may know that because of the different jurisdictions, sometimes it is not the federal Department of the Environment with which we deal.

There is a department which is responsible federally for radioactive materials, the department which deals with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for instance. I think the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is often involved in these, as well as the Department of the Environment, which, of course, has an interest.

Provincially, in terms of mine tailings, for instance, the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Labour, through occupational health and safety, and the Ministry of the Environment have an interest. We have all been contributing to try, first, to determine, as the member would like, the extent of the problem that exists there and then to look at potential remedial action.

The member would like to know that I was at the meeting of resource and environment ministers in Montreal a couple of weeks ago, where matters of this kind, of cleanups, through a combined federal-provincial fund could be effected. I think that would be one we would look at as potential use of a provincial-federal program, a superfund in other words, to deal with matters of that kind; as well, of course, as finding those who would be originally responsible to make sure they look after their obligations. I will keep the member informed on that.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Grier: My question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware of my concern about proposals for the waterfront in my riding, in an area known as the motel strip, where the city of Etobicoke proposes to allow 2,700 units of luxury condominiums on a 50-acre site.

In response to an earlier inquiry of mine, the minister assured me that her ministry was working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to make sure there was a better distribution of housing types within the area and that the 25 per cent affordable might apply.

I am now concerned to find, in a report to the Crombie commission, that Mr Crombie’s work group states, “The city has indicated that the nonprofit component -- ” on the motel strip “ -- may be built offsite.”

Does the minister consider that her requirement that 25 per cent of all new development be affordable housing is satisfied if that affordable housing is built offsite?

Hon Ms Hošek: I am glad to respond to the question from the member. The concern we have and the kind of message we have been giving to all municipalities, as the member will know, is that we expect them to plan for making sure that when new development happens, at least a quarter of the units will be affordable.

It is up to the municipalities to indicate the neighbourhoods within which planning of this sort will take place. The issue is how to define a neighbourhood so that within a new neighbourhood or new development process, 25 per cent of the housing units will be affordable.

Mrs Grier: This particular neighbourhood is 50 acres between Lakeshore Boulevard and the water; no housing yet built, 2,700 units planned. The first developer on the site is a company called Camrost Developments Inc., which also happens to own an industrial site bounded by the Queen Elizabeth Way and the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks and close to the sewage treatment plant. That is where it wants to put its affordable housing.

Can the minister give us a commitment that she will not allow the waterfront to be used for luxury condominiums and the affordable housing to be on an inland industrial site next to the sewage treatment plant?

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows that Mr Crombie’s report is in the form of advice to Metropolitan Toronto council. I know that she will work with us to achieve our goal of making sure that an appropriate mix of affordable housing is there in all new development on the lakeshore and all new development in Etobicoke.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr McLean: I have a question of the Minister of Health. She will no doubt remember that on 8 February of this year I presented a copy of a petition signed by 870 people calling for the expansion of heart bypass surgery services. This petition resulted from a series of delays and postponements of heart bypass for Lloyd Crawford of Oro Station.

This man cannot work. He has been waiting for a heart bypass. It was set for 20 June; now it is postponed until 26 June. This man and his family are very upset. What are we going to do to get these people in for their heart bypass operations?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I would say to the member opposite that we are working co-operatively with cardiovascular specialists right across this province to build the kind of network we need to ensure that the appropriate

definitions are in place and are consistent so that people can be referred to the location which has services available in a timely manner.

I would say to him also that we are in the process of expanding capacity in Hamilton. He knows that is coming on stream. We have already expanded capacity in both Sudbury and Ottawa and we are working in downtown Toronto, in fact, to bring up the Sunnybrook Medical Centre proposal as quickly as possible.

If the member would send to me the details of this particular case, I will make sure they are directed to the appropriate people to make sure they are properly assessed. But I would say to him that it is a question of medical judgement to determine whether an individual is considered emergency, urgent or elective. We do not interfere with medical judgements in these matters.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses and, hopefully, the end of the time for the private conversations.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Mackenzie: I have a petition: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980,

chapter 539 as amended by Statutes of Ontario, 1981,

chapter 30; Statutes of Ontario, 1982,

chapter 61; Statutes of Ontario, 1983,

chapter 45; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 38; Statutes of Ontario, 1984,

chapter 58; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 3; Statutes of Ontario, 1985,

chapter 17; and Statutes of Ontario, 1986,

chapter 64,

section 69,

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario in the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 rejects an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162 injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to even more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

It is signed by nine residents working with the Simcoe County Injured Workers Association. I have affixed my signature and I support it.

LOTTERY PROFITS

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition with regard to Bill 119 that has been signed by 442 residents of London, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“We, the undersigned, believe the windfall profits received from all lotteries should be used to offset underfunding to our Ontario hospitals. This will allow our hospitals to serve us in a manner we so rightfully deserve. Not to channel these funds under Bill 119 would be a disgrace undermining our intelligence.”

I have signed that one and I have another as well, if I could read it in at this point in time.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mrs Cunningham: This one has to do with the issue of the Lord’s Prayer. I have two sets of petitions, composed of more than 1,000 signatures each, from residents of Middlesex county and Elgin county, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“We, concerned citizens of Middlesex and Elgin counties, are expressing our extreme concern over the removal of the Lord’s Prayer and scripture reading from our school system.

“We strongly recommend that it be reinstated and the basics of the Christian faith be taught to our children.

“The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God, and we want to go on record that we will not tolerate the removal of those principles.

“We find the Toronto book of prayers and readings very unacceptable in our area.”

I have added my signature to that.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed with Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act,

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet the Minister of Labour, as reported in the media, wants the bill passed and implemented by the end of 1988 -- in other words, without an adequate process for public consultation, debate and discussion; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all of those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits that has been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because Bill 162 restricts an injured worker’s right to appeal decisions within the adjudication process and elsewhere, notably the percentage ‘impairment rating’ and reinstatement; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of Workers’ Compensation Board functionaries and made subject to ever more intrusive, invasive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This is signed by 41 people in Simcoe. I agree with them entirely and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Keyes: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

The petition contains 96 signatures and an endorsement of the proposed amendment. I have also affixed my signature hereto.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr Runciman: I have a petition signed by approximately 400 residents of my riding:

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

“We, the undersigned employees of the Ontario public service, demand a fully negotiable and jointly managed pension plan without any reductions in our salary.”

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Villeneuve: I too have a petition, signed by 361 residents in the riding that I represent. It is addressed:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the Treasurer and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Cigarette taxes have increased 300 per cent over eight years. Ontario imposes the highest tax on fine-cut tobacco in Canada.

“We, the undersigned taxpayers aged 18 years and over, call upon the government of Ontario to maintain tobacco taxes at their present level and not increase them in the upcoming budget.”

I have endorsed and signed this petition.

Mr Pope: I have a petition of a similar form, signed by 1,230 residents of the city of Timmins:

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

“Hold the line on tobacco taxes. Cigarette taxes have gone up 300 per cent over eight years. Ontario imposes the highest tax on fine-cut tobacco in Canada.

“We, the undersigned taxpayers aged 18 years and over, call upon the government of Ontario to maintain tobacco taxes at their present level and not increase them again this year.”

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Mahoney: I am delighted to have the member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) join me. As a matter of fact, I was going to open my comments today by telling the member for London North that I think her mother-in-law has excellent taste and judgement. Apparently, the member’s mother-in-law was watching the debate last night and thought I looked like a very friendly individual. I can assure Mrs Cunningham at home that I am indeed a friendly individual and delighted to be a friend of the member for London North.

Just to give equal time, I should also ensure that I say hello to my mother-in-law, or there will be no living with her. Edna, how are you? I will be in big trouble if I do not do that.

I know that members would be disappointed, particularly those opposite, if I did not continue with my comments, particularly with regard to the economic leadership that has been shown by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and indeed by this government and particularly by the formation of the Premier’s Council in 1986.

When the clock ran out last evening, I was partway through a description of the Premier’s Council, its function and some of the things that it has accomplished. Just to ensure that the honourable members, particularly those opposite, do not miss a thing, I am going to go back a little bit in my comments, to the beginning.

I will not take members all the way back to the points about the small business advocacy role or about what great leadership this government is showing in the area of small business, being of course the economic engine that drives this province very substantially. I will not do that, I am sure much to the relief of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) and others.

But I would like to go back a little bit to the points about the Premier’s Council because I think it is extremely important that we realize that in 1986, as a result of a feeling that the economic stability of this province was so vital to our future and our children’s future, the Premier (Mr Peterson) created the Premier’s Council because he recognized that our industrial and social infrastructures are coming under unprecedented pressure.

In fact, since its inception the Premier’s Council has developed seven centres of excellence to improve Ontario’s research and development capabilities in key areas of technological opportunity such as space, and I would note to my colleague the member for Mississauga North (Mr Offer) the great success in our city in the aerospace industry with new materials, telecommunications and information technology.

The council has also designated six centres of entrepreneurship in Ontario colleges and universities, to help instil in students an awareness of the opportunities and challenges involved in running their own businesses. As I stressed earlier, it is another example of the leadership in showing young people what entrepreneurship is all about and helping them to look towards a positive future.

The council has also developed a program to provide matching grants to industrial research projects involving promising new processes and technologies. Further, it has developed a program to encourage universities, once again, and the private sector to collaborate in various research projects.

The council has participated in a major review of competitiveness in the Ontario economy. It was particularly necessary to do that in light of the free trade agreement and the implications to all of our businesses in this community of doing business in the United States, and I heard an interesting analogy from my friends at Carassauga today that I think I will share with members. They said that they felt the difference between the United States and Canada is that in the United States they have President Bush, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. After last week’s budget, we have Brian Mulroney, no hope and no cash.

lnterjections.

Mr Mahoney: Members did not like that one? It was not mine. I borrowed it from the fellows from Carassauga, but it really does point out the serious impact of the federal budget on this government.

We have heard the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) talk in terms of losing substantial revenues that will not be coming in because the damage to the economy created by the Wilson budget will leave us in a position where our revenues will be down. I think it is vitally important that we recognize that and work with bodies like the Premier’s Council in an attempt to show encouragement to the private sector in our business communities and make them successful.

The result of these deliberations, which by the way went through over 1,000 consultations with people in the private sector, was the report that has been referred to on numerous occasions, Competing in the New Global Economy, published approximately a year ago.

This report identified a number of major challenges facing the Ontario economy and made a series of recommendations to deal with those challenges. It recommended assistance to help our mature industries modernize and beef up their infrastructure; it outlined policies to help new industries grow and prosper; it recommended ways to foster a more entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial culture in this province, and it suggested ways to improve our science and technology infrastructure.

This government, which has been accused by members of the opposition of failing to translate words into action, has implemented a new direction for industrial restructuring by establishing the office of the industrial restructuring commissioner. He will assess competitive factors facing selected industries in order to avoid, wherever possible, plant closures and job losses -- once again, I say plant closures and job losses primarily as a result of the implementation of the free trade agreement.

But we are going beyond that and we are moving out to find other markets for our businesses. As I mentioned, in 1992 there will be the creation of a new common market in Europe, close to 350 million people without any tariffs or barriers, and we believe that the Ontario business community can actively be involved in taking its products to Europe, perhaps using the United Kingdom as a launching pad but with the assistance of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The government has also acted to improve assistance for research and development by introducing the R and D superallowance in the last provincial budget and the government has announced the establishment of the technical personnel assistance program to subsidize the cost to small firms of hiring technical personnel.

We have also announced the strategic procurement plan, which will provide $25 million to companies towards contracts that will allow them to develop new products that the government is likely to need in the future.

This government is also proceeding with the recommendation to refocus the activities of the Ontario Development Corp, in line with the Premier’s Council recommendation.

The council’s report also stated that the ultimate challenge facing this province is the development of our most fundamental natural resource, the minds and the skill of our workforce. This ranges from education through training through labour adjustment. Clearly that is an area that this throne speech is addressing, along with the Premier’s Council.

In the future the council will be looking at the skill requirements in the new global economy, adjustment issues in declining industries, the management and implementation of new technology, training, apprenticeship and the assurance of technical skills, demographic and educational trends in this province, the role of organized labour in meeting new skill requirements and the potential for business, labour and institutional linkages.

I think the Premier’s Council has really sent a message to the private sector that says this government has confidence in the private sector.

Be it through working with the boards of trade, chambers of commerce and the industrial associations around the province or be it through working with the small business community, which I have the privilege of doing as the advocate, or working with the larger industries through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter), we are sending a united message through the throne speech that this Liberal government truly does believe that we must continue to provide the leadership to build on our economic strengths to ensure tomorrow’s growth for our children.

There are other items in the throne speech I did not get a chance to get to yesterday and I would just like to take a moment, if I might, to comment on some of them. Members opposite have made the remark that this government has some difficulty translating words into action. Let me share with them some of the words that have been translated into action in the social assistance area.

We are all well familiar with the Thomson report. As the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black) enters the room, he will recall that approximately two weeks ago, I was in his riding speaking to a group on small business. I was particularly interested when I asked the members of the group when we were in the workshop session what the main problems were that they had as a small business community.

They identified the first problem as not having good representation -- no, they did not say that.

Mr Faubert: It’s on the record.

Mr Mahoney: Is it on the record? Well, I did not say that.

They identified the first problem as the shortage of skilled and trained workers. Interestingly enough, they identified the second problem as difficulties in the areas of social assistance and, in fact, not unlike comments by Conrad Black and others, the business community in that riding felt that the government should create incentives for people to go to work and get off welfare or unemployment insurance or family benefits. They felt it was -- I found the terminology they used was quite interesting --

Mr Wildman: Are you quoting Conrad Black?

Mr Mahoney: No, it was not Conrad Black, it was Ken Black’s constituents who were saying that it was important to tighten up the social net. In fact, one of the men said that if you tighten up a net, you make a trampoline. I thought that was a very appropriate comment, and indeed I think that is the philosophy of this government, the philosophy of giving a hand up and not a handout, which would be advocated by some of our illustrious and not-so-illustrious colleagues opposite on the far left, who of course would think that just giving a handout is indeed the solution.

We believe in giving a hand up and we believe in, as the constituent in Muskoka-Georgian Bay said, tightening up that net and turning it into a trampoline.

To prove that and to prove that this government, through the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney), has indeed translated words into action, let me just give members some information from a briefing note from that ministry.

There have been six announcements of major improvements since 1985 in the family benefits assistance program and the general welfare assistance program. These are primarily for the disabled and single parents under the family benefits assistance program. Under general welfare, it is delivered by the municipalities, primarily for the unemployed and those waiting for other types of income. The total cost of these six announcements since the Liberal Party took office is $337 million. This represents an increase of 23.9 per cent in benefit levels over a three-year period.

In January 1986, $81.6 million was made available to allow for a four per cent increase in the general rate, and a special increase, for example, in new family benefits assistance: child’s winter clothing, $50 for two-adult families on GWA; seven per cent on basic allowances earmarked for children. Recognizing that around 41 per cent of the people on welfare have been identified by Mr Thomson as being children, I think it is vitally important that we recognize that this government, and particularly that ministry, is doing something to help those children who cannot help themselves.

In September 1986, $25 million was made available for the special improvements in shelter subsidy program; in January 1987, $72.7 million, a general rate increase again, plus special increases of $16 for older children and the extension of child’s winter clothing to GWA; in June 1987, $54 million, a special $50 increase in the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled allowance and a $1.8-million increase in comfort allowance for the nonelderly in institutions; in January 1988, $82.6 million, a general rate increase of five per cent, plus an eight per cent increase in maximum shelter subsidy; in June 1988, $20 million, permits utility costs paid separately from rent to be included in the definition of shelter costs.

These are not just words. These are words translated into action.

We are all familiar with the fact that George Thomson was appointed in July 1986 to conduct the independent public review. Fourteen communities were visited for public hearings; there were 1,500 briefs and submissions, proof that this government is an open, accessible government looking for input from the public. The report was received in September 1988, outlining a blueprint for reform of outdated features. This is a government especially interested in improving those work incentives that were identified by the business community in the Muskoka-Georgian Bay area and, quite clearly, in the rest of the province.

In July 1987, there was a signing of a four-cornered agreement that is the first example representing a new era of federal-provincial co-operation regarding employment programs for social assistance recipients. This was a $100-million program over two years, with $50 million being provincial dollars, to assist 20,000 social recipients prepare for and find employment.

In the area of dealing with poverty, which is the third item referred to in the throne speech, it is very clear that the Minister of Community and Social Services and this government are showing tremendous leadership in this area, in translating those words into dollars and those dollars into community programs to benefit those who are at a particular time in their lives when they are having some difficulty and to provide incentives for those people to find other jobs and other ways of life that will build a better future for them and their children.

Mr Black: Action, not just talking.

Mr Mahoney: That is exactly right. The proof is there. I find it somewhat comical actually when people stand up and say that we do not translate words into action, when they attack this throne speech, because there is proof of what we have done in every area of social concern, social care, social policy, in every area of providing economic leadership.

Let me touch on just a few of the concepts in health. No one will argue, I think, that our health budget has reached a proportion, 33 per cent, that is unacceptable: $1 out of every $3 that come into the provincial Treasury goes out to pay for our health care services. The parties opposite can stand up and accuse the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) of not doing this or not doing that, when in reality our Health minister is facing a crisis, one that any responsible legislative authority would recognize as a serious crisis.

There are things that we must do to get the message out to the people. I would suggest that there are in the recent program put out by the Minister of Health, Deciding the Future of our Health Care, a number of things the ministry is undertaking that will be addressed as a result of the statements in the throne speech.

The first is that we must enhance the role and the responsibility of the health consumers. In evolving the system to more effectively address consumers’ needs and to encourage their participation, the Ministry of Health aims to provide consumers with as much information as possible on both their personal health and the health care system.

I spoke some months ago on a private member’s resolution on a Thursday morning.

Mr R. F. Johnston: That’s when he started his speech.

Mr Mahoney: I may be speaking some months from now on the same thing, I say to my friend. One never knows. I hope the member will be patient with me; I am new at this.

I spoke some time ago on that private member’s resolution which called for the government to move towards the establishment of more of what I call community health centres. There are different buzzwords and names for them all, but I referred to the one in Sault Ste Marie.

The one in Sault Ste Marie is clearly a model that can and should be followed in other parts of this province, and many members in this House are quite familiar with it. It was built primarily through the blood, sweat and tears of the members of the United Steelworkers of America local at Algoma and with their money and contributions.

In my view it has accomplished exactly the very first point the ministry makes, and that is it has provided those consumers in Sault Ste Marie with as much information as possible on their personal health and the health care system. It has created a sense of ownership for the people in that city.

If you think of that city -- it happens to be my home town, so I know a little bit about it -- you have got a population base of roughly 82,000 or 83,000 people. Yet they have two general hospitals within a hundred yards of each other downtown and one of the most dynamic health care centres in this country and in this province. They would appear, on the surface, to be overburdened with facilities for health care, but in reality they have a sense of ownership of their health care system and do not abuse it. We must work towards that in every area of this province.

We must also help consumers to enable them to make informed choices on lifestyle issues affecting their health and the kinds of treatments they receive, to encourage them to use the services that are available in this province wisely, to provide opportunities for consumers to participate in effective health care delivery decisions in their community, to safeguard patients’ rights and to provide more vehicles for consumer participation in decision-making and review of complaints, malpractice and abuse of the system.

The second point is strengthening community-based health care. The ministry’s future directions focus on developing more community-based services, so that consumers can receive care as close to home as possible. It is very important that we decentralize, that we go out into those communities and provide health care as close to home as possible. That has not been the case in the past 50 years in this province. People who live in northern Ontario will tell you that for the slightest problem in the old days they used to have to fly down to Toronto or drive or take a bus to go to a hospital to get the care.

There are still certain specialty areas where that is required, but it is very important that on a general basis in health care, we provide that care as close to home as possible. These objectives include: creating a stronger network of community programs; integrating services and promoting equitable access, and providing alternatives to institutional care. I think that this country institutionalizes our senior citizens on a per capita basis more than any country, certainly in North America and probably in the world.

That really is, to a certain degree, a little bit of a condemnation. There are some members here who are not far away from requiring such ambulatory care. There are not many, but there are some who are not far away. I would hope that members might have an opportunity to grow old with grace, living within their communities and not being put into an institution where it becomes very impersonal.

I think it is very important that we do that and that we also create a balance of long-term care services, including home care, community care and extended care. We must emphasize health promotion and disease prevention. Again, this is the minister’s program. We must create incentives for hospitals to develop outreach and ambulatory care programs.

The third area where the ministry is working is in maintaining the role of public hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals and university teaching hospitals. In addressing the area of public hospitals, the ministry’s initiatives and future directions are developing a fair and equitable funding process for all hospitals and planning capital spending on a regional basis with hospitals working together as part of a co-ordinated plan.

Something I am not convinced has happened in this province is working together on a co-ordinated plan: not competing with each other for the hospital or for the health care dollar that might be available from the ministry, but getting together to best serve the community on a co-operative basis. We want to create incentives for management efficiencies and cost-effective care delivery, to create incentives for outreach and ambulatory care programs as alternatives to hospital care and to link the hospital to the community care network more effectively.

In the area of psychiatric hospitals, the ministry aims to develop a strategic planning process for the future of the psychiatric hospital system. In the area of university teaching hospitals, the objective is to strengthen its commitment to a stable and rationalized funding system for clinical research, sophisticated teaching services and quality patient care.

Once again, I think that any statements by members opposite that this throne speech lacks direction needs to be really tempered and followed up with the documentation which clearly proves that if we take each point and examine what the ministry is doing, they clearly do have a plan.

The fourth item by the Minister of Health is integrating private sector strengths and resources. That is a theme that runs through the entire government. Whether we are talking about the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, which I will admit is more geared toward the private sector than perhaps some of the social ministries, or whether we are talking about even the Ministry of Labour, which I think deals very effectively with the business community, or whatever ministry it is, it is a common thread throughout this government that we are looking at ways of forming new partnerships to create new ways of doing things as we move toward the end of the century.

The Ministry of Health is committed to carefully evaluating all aspects of private sector involvement in health care in terms of quality and accountability.

The ministry intends to work to encourage all providers of health care products and services, public and private, to inform consumers and give them opportunities to exercise good judgement; to examine private sector management techniques for delivering more effective services; to ensure public accountability, regardless of who delivers the service; to develop policies in the area of existing private sector ownership on issues such as rate of return, financial accountability and quality control, and to encourage the development of technology and manufacture of health care services.

How many glasses of water would one need to remain healthy in this wonderful province? I know that my colleagues are sending the page over here with water in an attempt to distract me and it is not going to work, but I will take a water break. The member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) can be the custodian. That was not water, actually. What are they sending me? What is going on here?

Hon Mr Wrye: Oh they didn’t.

Mr Mahoney: No, they did not. It is water. Trust me. The members can trust me, I am from the government.

The next item under the ministry’s program is to improve the quality assurance and treatment effectiveness. This area represents another crucial issue for examination that affects both the quality and cost of health care, including actual treatments, laboratory testing and use of pharmaceuticals.

The ministry’s objectives in this area will be to improve and transmit knowledge on treatment outcomes and validation and to encourage all health professions to take an active role in implementing outcome review by using methods of technology assessment to evaluate new high-technology equipment, drugs and medical procedures.

This actually ties very nicely, in my view, into the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology as well, because we are very clearly in the forefront in helping develop new technologies and we are interested in encouraging industry, be it in the medical field, the scientific field or any other area developing new products. We are interested in providing an atmosphere in this province that will help them to achieve their goals.

The final item on the strategy of deciding the future of our health care by the Minister of Health is strengthening the team of physicians, nurses and other health professionals. The wide range of health professionals in Ontario provides an important diversity of services and public choice in approaches to health care. The primary challenge in this area is to develop an appropriate system that allows the various professionals to perform their specific functions within a comprehensive health care team and a comprehensive health care strategy.

With regard to the role of the physicians on the health care team, the ministry’s direction will be to provide them with choices and alternatives in how they want to practice, how they want to be paid and, I should stress once again, to provide them with choices and alternatives in those areas; to encourage, through incentives, better distribution of physician services to underserviced areas and groups in this province, and to encourage physicians to evaluate effectiveness of treatment provided.

In examining the role of nurses, the ministry’s objective is to enhance the overall status of nurses in the health care delivery system, widen their range of responsibilities and improve their working conditions. Our surveys would indicate, very interestingly, that the most respected sector in all of society is the nursing profession, followed second by the doctors, but the nurses are actually generally held in the highest regard of all by the public. I think they must be commended for that.

The ministry will work to foster teamwork among all health professions to serve the best interests of the consumer through a number of objectives; to promote effective teamwork among health professionals; to promote accountability to the public; to foster a team of health professionals to effectively serve needs both inside institutions and outside them within the community; to enhance the professional status of all health professionals, and to enact new health professions legislation so as to better protect the public.

These are just a number of things that have been announced by the Ministry of Health. This document, of course, has received -- I will show members once again -- fairly wide circulation throughout the province. It is very important that all members of this Legislative Assembly from all parties read the document and understand the direction of the Ministry of Health.

I know there are others who wish to participate, so I may change my plans and not continue through the rest of the day and into tomorrow. I may, but I may not. I will decide that. I would like to discuss this government’s commitment to education.

Hon Mr Wrye: That is worth a couple of hours.

Mr Mahoney: I would think it is worth a couple of hours, but it can probably be very succinctly put forward. Let’s just talk about capital. Prior to 1985, in the last year of the Conservative government, the entire commitment to capital in the entire province of Ontario was about $72.7 million.

Mr Carrothers: That little. Shameful. How much?

Mr Mahoney: Ask me how much: $72.7 million.

Hon Mr Wrye: You’re spilling more than that.

Mr Mahoney: I am afraid we are spilling more than that. We have to do something about that with all this water around here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will. They are just being a little disruptive. We will try to get things moving along.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: As I said yesterday, I appreciate the support of the seals and I particularly am proud to be one of them.

The commitment to education by this government has been quadrupled in fact in the capital area. We have seen our Minister of Education (Mr Ward) make announcements of $900 million over three years for capital.

Is it enough? All you have to do is talk to someone in a growth region, to my colleague the member for Mississauga East (Mr Sola), who will know that all you have to do is talk to someone from the region of Peel and ask him, “Is that enough?” or from York or from Durham or from Halton, I say to the member for Halton North (Mr Elliot), and the answer is that it is obviously not enough.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: All right, I will mention the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, as well.

Any member living in a growth community, I say to the member for Oakville South (Mr Carrothers) -- I have to get through all of this here -- will recognize that it is clearly not enough. But what can we do other than make additional commitments to the boards of education to fund their needs as quickly as we can to come up with new ways of building new schools?

I started talking the other day about my speech in Sarnia to the large urban

section of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario last Thursday when I spoke about lot levies. I find it rather interesting that people would oppose lot levies to be used as part of a fund to build schools.

As I mentioned yesterday, the lot levy revenue in my city -- and it is something I am quite proud of, because as a member of council for almost 10 years I was one of the people involved in designing the lot levy policy, so I do not think it is anything we have to be ashamed of -- our revenue from lot levies in 1988 in the region of Peel, city of Mississauga and Mississauga Hydro was over $56 million.

Not one cent of that went towards schools. It went for hydro, it went for sewers, it went for infrastructure, it went for arenas, for swimming pools, for fire stations, for fire trucks, for all the things that are necessary in a fast-growing community.

Mr Pouliot: Nothing for the north.

Mr Mahoney: We are not going to give money from Mississauga to the north, with due respect, but if the member wants to charge lot levies, this new green paper will allow --

Mr R. F. Johnston: You don’t believe in pooling?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Pouliot: You ought to be ashamed.

Mr Mahoney: I am sure that Hazel McCallion would probably have some difficulty in supporting the member’s municipality, but I am sure she would be delighted to share with him the lot levy policy that has been developed in the city of Mississauga and that has formed the basis of many policies around the entire province.

Growth must pay its own way. It is a statement that is in our official plan and it should be in every official plan in this province; indeed, it should be an official position of the government of Ontario. I am hopeful that if the green paper comes through the current deliberations, there will be a policy put in place that will allow municipalities to make the choice.

Time and time again we have demonstrated our desire to work with the local municipalities in understanding the needs that they have within their own communities, in understanding that someone from northern Ontario ma