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

October 21, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L051 - Tue 21 Oct 1986 / Mar 21 oct 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL BEDS

EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN'S WEEK

THOM COMMISSION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ONTARIO ROAD MAP

PENSION FUNDS

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

IMPORT SURTAX

NURSING HOMES

EXTRA BILLING

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PENSION FUNDS

SALE OF PATENTED LAND

HOSPITAL BEDS

FLOODING

PENSION FUNDS

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS

SCHOOL FUNDING

POLICING ON RESERVES

COURT FACILITIES

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT /

LOI SUR L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO HOSPITAL ACT

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 2 p.m. Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Swart: At this time, I call upon the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to review with great care the recommendation of the Niagara District Health Council to reject additional chronic care beds for the Welland County General Hospital.

The situation there is extremely serious. At present, 60 of the 158 surgical and medical beds are being occupied by chronic care and extended care patients. This is causing a tremendous backup through the system, with surgery being postponed and unreasonable numbers of people being kept in emergency on stretchers. In September, a total of 103 patients waited on stretcher beds for an average of 19.8 hours each. Obviously some of them waited for several days with little comfort or privacy.

That situation is intolerable and must be rectified. The hospital board has asked the minister and the health council to provide immediately an additional 25 chronic care beds, with provision for another 25 by 1989-90. The minister must know that partly because of the long downturn in the south Niagara area, the Welland district has a higher than average ageing population. The 11.9 chronic care bed formula cannot be applied indiscriminately across the province or even in a region.

There may be need for the allotment proposed by the health council of 80 additional chronic care beds for Niagara Falls, 30 for Fort Erie, 25 for Port Colborne and 12 for Grimsby, but the need in Welland is comparable.

EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN'S WEEK

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Some of us are being approached today to discuss the issue of alternative and independent schools. I do not want to confuse my comments with their arguments. My point is quite different.

This is Exceptional Children's Week in the region of Waterloo. Exceptional children may be recognized as children with special needs because of physical or mental impairment, communication disability, social and emotional maladjustments or enriched intellectual and creative ability. An ability or disability becomes a handicap when the child is unable to cope with daily life and develops negative feelings of self-worth.

The Canadian Council for Exceptional Children is meeting this week in Kitchener with the theme "Challenging, encouraging and caring." The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, are joining them.

The Canadian Council for Exceptional Children is an organization that promotes the advancement and education of all exceptional persons through the enhancement of community awareness and the development of special needs programs so that a community is always challenging, encouraging and caring for all its exceptional persons. We wish them well.

THOM COMMISSION

Mr. Gordon: The government has just admitted that we may see the Thom commission's report by the end of this year but that it could take even longer. The inquiry has already cost taxpayers more than $2.5 million. The Globe and Mail reports an aide to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) as saying, "If we don't like it, we'll dismiss what he says." I think the landlords and tenants of this province have a right to know where this report is going and what its purpose is.

In 1984, after volume 1 of the commission's report was released, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated that the government should scrap any further inquiry. With the government's agenda of passing Bill 51, what possible purpose could Thom's massive report serve? Has the government not already made its decision on rent controls? Is Mr. Thom's report not merely the flogging of a dead horse? Why is the government continuing to pay Mr. Thom $250 a day to prolong a redundant inquiry, which by the Premier's own admission should have been scrapped two years ago?

After submissions to the inquiry ended in 1985, we were told that the Thom commission would be ready by this past summer. What happened? Why has the government not told Mr. Thom to hurry the report? More important, why is the government condemning years of testimony and analysis to a dusty bookshelf?

I think I can answer those questions. The government is appearing to favour an objective inquiry when it has already made up its mind on rent control. I ask the government, is this open-minded? Is this democratic?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I recently received a report in a brown envelope concerning health and safety in Ontario and the swamp. It involves the role of various officials in the Ministry of Labour in their attempts to keep these cases under wraps. I have the documentation on each of the charges levelled against ministry staff, the names of those staff and so on.

The charges of coverup and failure of government, including the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), to respond are so serious that hearings are being held and lawyers do not even show up at them. Can members imagine? There is constant interference by directors against their own inspectors in the ministry. Orders have been issued by the inspectors, and supervisors on their own, without advising the inspectors, revoked the orders.

I suggest the little inquiry that is going on by Coopers and Lybrand was ordered to prevent all this material from coming to the fore. It is my intention over the next couple of weeks to raise these issues one by one, all 27 of them, and the coverup, so that we get a proper inquiry into the conduct of senior Ministry of Labour staff.

ONTARIO ROAD MAP

Mr. Sheppard: It was recently brought to my attention that on the 1986-87 official road map, the hamlet of Codrington was moved from Highway 30 to the junction of county roads 25 and 27, about seven kilometres west of its actual location. Furthermore, if one is looking for the hamlet of Morganston, one will not find it, because on the map Codrington is where Morganston should be. Confused? So am I.

Despite the fact that Codrington is home to only a handful of individuals, those people still have families and friends who would probably like to visit some day. It is perhaps a bit unnerving to discover that Ontario road maps are not as trustworthy as we all assume.

With the government's emphasis on tourism, especially in the east, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation "offers incentives to major public and private tourist operations in an effort to attract more people to eastern Ontario." What good will that do when visitors become confused about where they actually are? Ontario -- now that is what I call incredible.

I therefore invite all members of the Legislature to take a good look at a map to make sure that all the hamlets in their ridings are in their proper locations. I will send this small road map over to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) so he can see.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Warner: The government's inaction on protecting workers against pension theft -- corporate piracy, as the courts have called it -- is inexcusable. An individual by the name of Bill Sinclair purchases a company, MAN Lepper, one day and sells it the next day. For owning a company one day, he is ready to help himself to $1 million in the surplus in the pension funds. The Pension Commission of Ontario finds that its hands are tied in assisting the workers, because we do not have adequate legal protection for the workers in the province. Those employees stand to lose what is rightfully theirs.

Individuals such as Mr. Sinclair and others are free to exercise their piracy in helping themselves to workers' pension surplus, and the government sits idly by and allows it to happen. In the old days, I suppose, piracy on the high seas was acted upon by having capital punishment. We do not do that any more, but the least the government could do is to bring in the necessary legal protection so that workers are no longer subjected to the piracy that is being practised on them through their pension plans. This government stands condemned on the pension issue.

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I would like to address my opinion to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) and ask when he is going to put the treatment centre, the prison for psychologically disturbed prisoners, in the Sudbury region. For him to go in and tell the city that the site it has offered him for $1 is too rocky is ludicrous. The north is rock. When is he going to act on this? This is long overdue, and it is a shame he has taken this attitude with the region of Sudbury.

14:13

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will have the pleasure of introducing the International Commercial Arbitration Act. This act will implement in Ontario a model law on the subject prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Implementation of the model law will make the Canadian law more favourable to international arbitrations for the benefit of Canadian businesses that face arbitration clauses in most of their foreign contracts.

Our business people will be both more familiar and more comfortable with the new arbitration procedures. In addition, they may benefit from having arbitrations take place here rather than abroad because of our modern and internationally recognized code. In this connection, I advised the House earlier this year that I was appointing a committee to advise me on whether the new climate we are creating for international business in Ontario would make it desirable to set up an international arbitration centre. This has the potential to facilitate further international business by Ontario firms.

The proposed act is made necessary in Ontario by the outdated provisions of our present Arbitrations Act. Unlike the existing act, the new legislation strictly bars the courts from intervening in the course of an arbitration or from considering the merits of the dispute between the parties. The philosophy of the model law is that, to the greatest extent possible, arbitration should be recognized as a private means of settling a dispute. The parties who have agreed to arbitrate should not be able to delay proceedings by dragging them into court.

The Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, 1986, which was Bill 98, passed by this House in July, provided for the enforcement of awards from arbitrations conducted outside Canada. The proposed act goes further by prescribing rules for conducting such arbitrations in Ontario. The model law will be a complete consolidation of all provisions relating to international commercial arbitration, and in fact it will include the provisions enacted in Bill 98 last July. Bill 98 was needed to meet a federal deadline and now can be repealed in favour of our new statute.

By providing the most modern rules for international arbitration, ones recognized around the world through the offices of the United Nations, we will keep Ontario competitive with the other provinces and a leading participant in the development of private international law in the field of arbitration. I invite the House to act and carry out this proposed regime.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of brief response to the announcement by the Attorney General, I would comment with interest on one point he makes in his statement. He says the necessity for this law is brought about in part by a desire to serve parties who have agreed to arbitrate and to ensure that they not be able to delay proceedings by dragging them into the courts.

I wonder about that statement coming from the man who is in charge of our court system. If it is such a threat that people can be dragged into the courts, and if there are delays in the court system sufficient to trigger this kind of legislation, why does he not do something about the delays in the court system? Why has he not done something about them to date?

I wonder too about the incompetence of this government in bringing forth this legislation approximately six weeks or two months after having passed a previous piece of legislation designed to take care of this problem. As the Attorney General admits in his statement, part of this bill will be to repeal the previous bill.

The model law to which this is designed to give effect is the United Nations model law, which has been in effect for several years. The Attorney General knew this model law existed in the early part of this year when he introduced the Foreign Arbitral Awards Act. Why go through the process of three readings in the House only to repeal it six weeks later and start all over? Can they not get their act together over there?

Ms. Gigantes: A word in response to the announcement by the Attorney General of the international commercial arbitration bill, which we will be considering. On behalf of my caucus, I am sure I can say we look forward to dealing with this bill. We will subject it to the thorough review it merits. Our approach is quite different from that of my friend in the Conservative party, in that we are very much in favour of staged progress in this process. As we stage these little fillips that we provide for business to make business life more orderly and easier in Ontario, we expect the passage of this bill will provide us with the next step in our equal pay legislation, and so we welcome it doubly.

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Hon. Ms. Munro: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to announce to my colleagues the second annual Ontario Public Library Week.

This year, Ontario Public Library Week runs from October 20 through October 26. This initiative will show the people of this province the quality and value of Ontario's public library system.

Our motto is "Celebrate Ontario Public Library Week," and our theme is "Libraries are more than just books." Yesterday my ministry launched the week with a fashionable look at libraries, a presentation highlighting the variety of programs and services available through our public library system. Ontario's libraries offer a diversity of materials and entertainment that accurately reflect the nature of our province and the world in which we live.

Whether as a source of information or as a centre of community activity, Ontario public libraries make invaluable contributions to the high quality of life we enjoy in Ontario. Ontario public libraries play a critical role in the development of our social and cultural consciousness. They are an essential part of our identity as Ontarians.

Ontario can be justifiably proud of the fact that public libraries reach 99.56 per cent of our population. There are more than 400 public library boards across Ontario, with 1,738 outlets or branches serving Ontarians. During Ontario Public Library Week, many of these boards and outlets will hold their own events.

I encourage each one of my colleagues, along with every resident of Ontario, to join us in celebrating Ontario Public Library Week and to discover the wealth in Ontario public libraries.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to share in the recognition of Ontario Public Library Week, I wish to say there is an omission in the statement, which does not recognize that public library boards are generally filled totally by volunteers. Some library boards, as we know, have elected officials on them, but in the majority it is volunteers who serve as members of those boards and commit a great deal of their personal time, wisdom and knowledge for the benefit of everyone throughout the public library system.

We are well aware that there is a tremendous concern of librarians all over this province about the shortage of funding. Is it not a shame that this announcement could not have included the same commitment to funding that the former government recognized in the needs of libraries and the people who use them?

Mr. Warner: I welcome the statement made by the real Minister of Citizenship and Culture with respect to the public libraries. I hope the government shares the view that libraries have a tremendous challenge ahead of them in the next decade, the challenge of making sure our libraries are relevant to all our communities, not just the Anglo-Saxon community. They must respond to the very individual needs of every one of our multicultural communities. They have a very active role to play with respect to the cultural community, meaning the arts community as well.

The underfunding is something that cannot be ignored. The former government did not have the kind of enthusiasm I think should be reflected in government policy. This government has a challenge to meet the necessary funding levels. If it fails, then we do a great disservice to generations to come, because the building of libraries is not something that can be done every 10 years. It is an ongoing process; therefore, it commands a certain high level of funding every year.

I hope the government will be up to this challenge. So far, there is not the kind of indication about which I believe we could all feel confident.

14:23

ORAL QUESTIONS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the softwood brothers, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We noted in the Globe and Mail this morning that the Premier was trying to run quickly from the inaction of his colleagues on the softwood lumber issue. We looked back at last Thursday's Hansard, in which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) said, "Our officials have been working very closely with Miss Carney and we feel we have had a lot of input."

How does the Premier reconcile that statement, which, I remind him, was made two and a half weeks after the federal minister indicated her willingness to accept the 10 per cent surcharge, with his attempts to suggest that his government was snookered on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In my capacity as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I am very happy to respond to the honourable member's question.

By way of

preamble, the two ministers are at this very moment meeting with Miss Carney and other federal and provincial industry officials with respect to developing some sort of coordinated response.

I do not see the discrepancy that the member points out. When those discussions were going on, the Ontario view of the situation was very clear to us and to others. The view, and the advice we gave, was not to negotiate that particular situation. That is clear.

The member will be aware that Miss Carney went to Washington and announced to the world that she was prepared to negotiate the situation. It came as a complete surprise to Ontario officials and, I assume, to a variety of others. Clearly, a number of Industry, Trade and Technology officials were also not aware of it. There were subsequent meetings and, in the interest of presenting a united front and not a divided front, Ontario went along. However, I do not want the member to get an erroneous impression of what transpired over that period.

Mr. Grossman: Clearly, what happened over that period was that Ontario perhaps objected at first to the suggestion that there be an offer, but ultimately, instead of speaking for Ontario and fighting hard against the imposition of a tariff which will cost more jobs in northern Ontario than a lottery office in Sault Ste. Marie will create, the Premier decided to go along.

The minister indicated yesterday that the government was prepared now to fight what it endorsed a couple of weeks ago. With that in mind, can the Premier tell me the details of the major meeting that was held on this very question in Washington yesterday, what it was about and who represented Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ontario did not have a representative at the meeting in Washington yesterday, if in fact there was one in Washington.

There were meetings here in Toronto yesterday with officials, represented by the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and industry representatives. There were meetings this morning with the same officials, I believe, and this afternoon the ministers are meeting. There are ongoing meetings with respect to this issue.

Mr. Grossman: After the handwringing the minister went through yesterday about this problem and assuring everyone that he would fight hard to reverse his earlier decision, I am shocked that the Premier would rise today and indicate that no one spoke for Ontario, that no one was there yesterday representing Ontario's interests at a key meeting in Washington. Let me tell the Premier what he, his trade minister and their officials missed.

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary, I hope.

Mr. Grossman: Yesterday there was a disclosure conference at the International Trade Commission offices in Washington to give the factual basis upon which they reached their decision.

That would allow the Premier and his trade minister to mount the case to defend Ontario's interest and point out that the 15 per cent levy should not be put in place. After having assured the House yesterday, again, that he would fight, he did absolutely nothing. He did not even go to get the basic information upon which he could protect Ontario's interest.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Can the Premier explain to the House why it was that yesterday, at this major disclosure meeting in Washington, he did not even arrange for a single Ontario official to be there to get the details which will allow him to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my friend opposite, who will want to take his views to his federal kissing cousins, who have been in charge of carriage on this matter -- and he will want to do that and discuss it with Miss Carney, who is in town this afternoon -- that is about the silliest suggestion I have heard from him in a long time.

The meetings were here yesterday with industry officials, federal officials and others. They are meeting again today. We have copies of the judgement that was brought down by the ITC. I think that he, in candour, should probably stand up in this House and apologize for what some of his members were saying yesterday in quoting only parts of the judgement.

14:30

On page 17 of the judgement, it said Ontario was the only province that provided full information. One of the members, the one who is wagging his head, inadvertently gave incorrect information to this House yesterday. I think he will want to stand up and say Ontario was the province that was forthcoming in this regard and that it carried its case extremely well. This case has been well handled by our officials in charge of it. They are on top of the situation on a daily basis. I regret the way this has turned out. I think the member will want to take some of his suggestions to his federal brethren.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier will recall lauding the Prime Minister of the country so generously for bringing Canadians together. Of course, the Premier was in Tokyo at the time. I invite the Premier to get his staff, each of whom earns at least $57,000 a year, to get a copy of this before the end of question period and send over page 17. Then we will have an opportunity to see whose information is correct.

IMPORT SURTAX

Mr. Grossman: With regard to defending Ontario's interests, we know the United States is entering into even more steps with regard to defending itself against imports from a lot of countries, including Canada. Can the Premier tell us specifically what representations his government has made through the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology with regard to the Heinz-Murtha bill?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member attacked me in this House for being generous or complimentary to one of my peers in this country. It would serve him well to have a generous thought about someone somewhere in this country at some time. I am one of those people who believes in being constructive where one can possibly be constructive and not destructive on all occasions, as seems to be the member's particular wont.

We are very much aware of what is happening in the United States. I was talking to Mr. Clark with respect to Ontario initiatives a few moments ago before I came into the House. We are very concerned about the potential impact on Ontario. It would be substantial. We are making our views known on that subject. If the member is telling me to stand up and shout and scream the way he is wont to do, I do not think he is being constructive.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: That is his imitation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

I will take the Premier's advice. This afternoon I want to laud John Turner for his continuing support of freer trade negotiations in the light of recent developments. I invite the Premier to join in supporting all Canadians who want to negotiate so that these kinds of things do not happen. I laud Mr. Turner. The Premier should take his advice once in a while. My question to the Premier is this

Mr. Speaker: Was that not your supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: That was not even close to an interrogatory.

Mr. Speaker: I was listening carefully.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier assured us a moment ago, as if he knew what the bill was all about, that he was going to protect Ontario's interests. Can he outline for us which interests he thinks are under attack and threatened by the Heinz-Murtha legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, the member invited me to comment on Mr. Turner's approach to free trade. I am very interested to hear the new approach of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a man who has changed his mind on free trade about three times. His position is different from that of the members of the committee. The problem is that none of them, and particularly his, is credible on these issues. He keeps changing his mind. When Ontario speaks on trade issues, Ottawa listens, as do the other provinces; they do not when the member speaks.

I cannot add to the former answer. The member heard the minister speak yesterday about the question of the imposition of a flat import duty to the United States. We are discussing that with others, as well as making representation to the extent that this province has a voice in Washington.

Mr. Grossman: The United States Congress has been invited by the Heinz-Murtha bill to slap serious additional quotas on key Canadian products. The Premier does not even know what the bill is. He has taken no action and he does not even have the decency this afternoon to stand up and say he is going to request some information and going to fight it.

If he will not do that, I will repeat the question. Will he stand up this afternoon and say, in spite of his protestations that he will defend Ontario's interests, that candidly he does not know what the Heinz-Murtha legislation is and he has not taken any steps to inquire about it, and that a good period of time after it has been introduced, his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has not acted on it? Will he stand up and tell us what the Heinz-Murtha legislation is or tell us that he has done nothing about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I find the member's approach in this House rather strange. He is not really interested in the information; he is interested in dragging people down to his level. I am not prepared to do that. He knows where we stand on these issues. He knows what has been done and he knows the public statements by the minister and myself on this matter. We will continue to do that.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Health. I want to ask him some questions relating to the report of the Nursing Homes Residents' Complaints Committee, which bears the date of March 1986 but which was suppressed by the minister until its publication in September.

Was the reason the report was suppressed and not released until the minister felt he had some good news to report the fact that the report stated, for example, that the committee has found some homes that spend as little as $2.10 per day on food? Can the minister tell us how this expenditure on food per day compares either with a general hospital or with what the Ministry of Correctional Services regards as acceptable in its detention centres?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot tell the honourable member what the comparison is. I know all of us are concerned by that aspect of the report, and I want to indicate to the members that an expenditure of $2.10 per resident per day is not an acceptable level. The report was quite interesting from several standpoints with respect to the overall industry. I can tell the member it has been very helpful from my standpoint as an internal document and for the people who have seen it since its release.

Mr. Rae: It is not an internal document, and the minister suppressed it. He suppressed it for a period of months because it contained some bad news that he did not want people to hear. He knows that, everybody knows it and it is time somebody blew the whistle.

For the minister's information, the Toronto General Hospital in October 1986 spends $5.28 per day per patient and Ontario jails, detention centres and correctional centres spend $4.29 per day per resident of those institutions. Given this appalling contrast in a comparison between a hospital and the nursing home figures that were released by Dorothea Crittenden in her report, would the minister care to comment on the following quotation from that report?

"In a profit-oriented system, operators are motivated to decrease costs -- in this case food, staff, time, luxuries, etc. -- in order to increase or maintain their profit margin. As a result, many aspects of the industry do not reflect the expectations of Ontario society in 1986."

Is that why the minister suppressed the report for six months?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did not suppress the report. The member ought to know the report goes on to indicate that the industry does have some very fine examples of people who provide top-quality care. He might want to indicate that is part of the report as well.

14:40

I am concerned about the parts of the report that indicate very strongly there are large concerns about the manner in which some facilities carry on. There is no question that is a concern to us. That is why we are moving to change the way the nursing home industry is administered.

The fact that we are going to have people who will be acting solely as consultants and others who will be looking at ways of enforcing the legislation is a clear indication of our commitment to ensuring that we have a role to play in upgrading the way these facilities are operating. We will continue to do that.

There are some concerns, but having spoken with Dr. Dorothea Crittenden, I must say she has indicated there are some very good performers inside the system as well. I know the member would want to indicate that clearly to the people of the province.

Mr. Rae: The report was suppressed by the minister. He had it in his hands in March 1986. He released it as part of a so-called good news package in September 1986. It is time the public knew what was in this report. It is a devastating critique of our nursing home industry. It is a devastating critique of the quality of life to which seniors are being subjected in many of these institutions that are run on a private-profit basis. The minister knows it. He sat on the report. He suppressed it. He did not release the information. Those are the facts, and they are on the record.

Is the minister aware that the report states that the average found by Dr. Crittenden for nursing homes was between $2.50 and $2.60? What does he intend to do to ensure that residents who are living in nursing homes are not subject to these substandards, these standards that are below a quality of life any reasonable person in Ontario would expect? What does he intend to do about it?

How does the minister justify the suppression of this information, together with many other clear-cut criticisms of the way in which this so-called industry is being run at a time when his government says: "We are an open government. We are a sunshine government. We want to helps seniors"? He sat on a report for six months and did nothing about all the evidence

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable leader of the third party is wrong. We have moved to deal with several of the items in there. The document has been of use. We have put together several responses to it. We are continuing to work with the amendments to the Nursing Homes Act.

The people of the province will be proud of the nursing home operations. We are amending, we are moving forward with many of the incentives to make sure that the people in our nursing homes are well cared for. Our commitment is for no less than that.

This government is also committed to do what it can to help people remain in their homes. We are going to deal with this very sensitive question on many fronts. We will not give up or let up on our activities; we are committed to improving the lot of our seniors.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health with respect to the continuation of extra billing and other practices by individual members of the medical profession.

Recently our office received a call from Gord Lake of Stouffville, who felt his wife, Audrey, was being refused surgery, or at least was being treated in a different way, because the doctor said he could not extra bill for the operation. This charge was sufficiently serious that my office phoned the doctor directly to inquire about what precisely had gone on.

The doctor stated that he would receive about $450 for a cataract operation but only about $240 for implant surgery, which he described as an operation of equal risk. Therefore, he said, he would not do the implant surgery because he felt it would "only make her more comfortable."

When we asked the doctor involved whether he would do it if the Ontario health insurance plan were to pay $450, he told my staff, "It would be reasonable to do it for a higher price." He also said he knew of several doctors who were refusing to do so-called low-priced surgery.

Is the minister aware of the situation described by this doctor where certain doctors are declining to do surgery because they feel it is not sufficiently lucrative for them to do it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Over the past several years there has been some indication, which has not changed over the past several months, that some practitioners are concerned about the level of benefits as set out under OHIP. I have not been aware until now of any physician who has said specifically, on that basis, that he or she will not perform surgery that is medically required.

Perhaps the member will tell us when he made these inquiries and how long ago it has been, so we can check into it. I am not sure, but we might be of some assistance in obtaining a referral, some other physician who would take on the medical procedure. I do not know. I do not have enough of the facts to go much further with this inquiry. If the member could share some of these examples with us in a timely manner, I am sure it would help us deal with the needs of the patient.

Mr. Rae: The information is being gathered by my office all the time. The minister will appreciate that it is of a sensitive nature. He will also appreciate that, obviously, no doctor is going to say, "I am refusing to perform a medically necessary operation because of the money involved." It appears to be the case in this instance that a doctor is saying the way he practises medicine is determined by the fees he receives. That causes me very deep concern, and it should cause the minister concern.

Will the minister comment on the letter that is sent to patients by Dr. Lorne M. Tarshis in Toronto, which states that he does not deal directly with OHIP but will deal directly with patients? I quote:

"OHIP allows a physician to charge patients directly for `noninsured services.' Dr. Tarshis's fees include this charge. You will be responsible for payment of Dr. Tarshis's fees, but if this presents any financial hardship, please discuss the matter and the account will be adjusted accordingly. Payment of this account would be appreciated at the time of your visit to the office or following the rendering of services."

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Will the minister comment on the practice of doctors who put all the administrative fees in one bundle and say these fees will be charged to patients and the only basis upon which the fees will be removed is if patients have a financial discussion with their doctors?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I must ask the gentleman to share with us when this information came to his attention. If we are to deal with these incidents, which he is alleging are causing difficulties for patients, we must do so in a timely manner. Yesterday the member read to us from a letter he received July 16 and was unable to bring to my attention until yesterday. That is suppression of a kind we would have some concern about.

The honourable gentleman knows full well that when patients are in difficulty, I would like to know about it in a timely fashion. When people lump things together, I do not think it is appropriate that they do not provide some detailed information for us so we can determine exactly what is happening. The gentleman knows that is the case; I will look into those situations if he can provide for me some disclosure of these items in a timely manner.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows perfectly well that he has correspondence from members of our party dating back to August to which he has failed to respond. If he does not believe me, we can document it for him. The instance I raised in my first question was a case that was brought to our attention and we discussed with the doctor this week. I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Please ask the minister.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that there are literally countless examples of doctors practising in Ontario who are routinely insisting on administrative fees as a matter of right in terms of the care they will give, that there are obstetricians who are as a matter of general practice and general rule insisting on a so-called standby fee that does not offer any guarantee with respect to service --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Is he aware of those things that are taking place in Ontario today, October 21, 1986?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am aware of the examples that have been brought to my attention, and we wish to pursue them. I invite members to keep those examples coming. Examples have been brought to my attention by various members, and we respond to them. The member knows we will look into each of those situations.

I can tell the members and the public that through our meetings with the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, we are addressing these types of situations, which indicate that there is no clear definition of what is being charged and how it is being charged. When we have the detailed information we need to proceed against these situations, we will take the necessary steps.

I thank the honourable gentleman and all members here for bringing these items to my attention, but I must say there has to be timely disclosure so we can work away and full disclosure so we can work at this to protect the patients.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

14:50

Mr. Pope: I would like to pose a question to the Premier. It has to do with the softwood lumber issue in the United States and here in Ontario.

The Premier will be aware from his recent study of this issue that, going back to 1962, the chief complaint in the US Congress and to the International Trade Commission emanated out of the stumpage and crown dues practices of British Columbia. He will also be aware that Senator Packwood was instrumental in having the House committee on ways and means request the ITC in 1982 to do an investigation and have public hearings on this matter in Portland, Oregon, with a specific emphasis on the Pacific Northwest and the British Columbia stumpage practices, and that this complaint is the major complaint today of the American producers.

Does the Premier not agree -- and I acknowledge it is in hindsight -- that it was a mistake for Ontario to link itself to the British Columbia position? Would it not be wiser for Ontario, while arguing the Canadian case that there was no subsidy in stumpage policies, to protect itself and claim an exemption for producing companies in Ontario because we do not have the same nature of policies that British Columbia does?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member raises an interesting question. He will be aware that our stumpage is roughly double that in British Columbia and in Quebec. I am aware that since the majority of the exports come out of British Columbia, the majority of the attention is on that area. We are second, roughly equal in exports with Quebec, even though Quebec has substantially lower stumpage than we do.

Because these things are not directed against particular provinces, but against countries, the question in national terms is, what was the best approach in this matter? Miss Carney, as well as federal officials, had carriage of this matter. The member can second-guess the decision and say that perhaps we should have gone to the US with two or three different positions or with a united position. I suspect that had we gone with a divided opinion, he would have been the first to stand up in this House and castigate us on the approach that was taken.

Frankly, our approach is to deal, where possible, on a national basis and to give the best advice we possibly can. Let me assure the member we did that. But when things happen, such as policies being announced in Washington by Miss Carney unbeknownst to us, they obviously put pressure on the situation.

As a former minister and having spent some time on this issue, the member is knowledgeable on this issue. I hope he will use the great credibility he has in this House as a former minister and as an outstanding member of the Progressive Conservative Party to phone Miss Carney, tell her exactly what he told me and give her some advice on this matter.

Mr. Pope: I will be happy to try to do the Premier's job for him if he does not feel he can do it.

I refer the Premier to page 67 of the decision and indicate that he is obviously unaware of the suspension of liquidation provisions that are available to anyone who appears before the ITC. Why did he not avail himself of those provisions and help Ontario workers and industries?

Because he opted to go along with British Columbia and Quebec in the national consensus he went along with, can he tell us what proportion of the burden of the eight to 10 per cent solution is going to fall on Ontario workers and industries? Did he make a specific deal that Ontario would be exempt from the burden of that eight to 10 per cent solution?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the interest of causing a political fuss, the member, as is his leader, is making in his statement a bunch of assumptions that are not particularly valid in the circumstances. He is entitled to second-guess what has been done, but he should not for a minute pretend that what he is saying is the truth in these matters or that it would have absolutely happened, because he is quite wrong in the circumstances. I know exactly what he would say to me if we had taken different approaches in this matter. We gave the very best advice we could possibly give, but no one can say for sure what effect the indication made by Miss Carney to the US cabinet minister had on the ITC.

We are studying that judgement in great detail. The advice we are getting is that it is legally flawed and that there are ways in which it can be attacked. Our approach is to attack it legally, diplomatically and in every single way we possibly can. It is not our approach to try to negotiate a solution to this in the sense of admitting guilt. We have to fight this thing, because we believe it is wrong. That is the advice we are taking to the federal representatives, to the other provinces and to others.

My honourable friend, who used to have some friends in the industry and used to know them reasonably well, should avail himself of all the facts in this circumstance and talk to the industry about the role Ontario played in this matter. They will tell him, the ones who know the issue even better than he did when he was their lackey in 1983 and went down there -- he was making the case they suggested to him; he was carrying their message; he was acting for them; he was not acting for the government. Let me tell the member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier, who has received a large number of letters from steelworkers, auto workers and other union members concerning a potential flaw in early retirement pensions for workers in the province.

The modification of the Canada pension plan to allow for early retirement at age 60 can be totally negated if early retirement benefits in existing private plans are able to take advantage of this incentive by reducing the private bridging benefits dollar for dollar. This can destroy the incentive for early retirement, which opens up employment and creates more enjoyment in the golden years.

Is the Premier prepared to respond positively and quickly to end this loophole in the plans?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have not seen the letters the member talks about. It may very well be the case. As the member knows, I get thousands of letters. I will take the point the honourable member raises in this House under advisement, I will review all the aspects with the minister responsible and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I will share the information from that review with him.

Mr. Mackenzie: I hope the Premier's staff will show him some of the hundreds and probably thousands of letters that have been sent to him on this issue.

Does the Premier not agree that Ontario should offer at least the same protection to its workers that Quebec did when it brought in such protective legislation in conjunction with similar modifications to the Quebec pension plan in 1984?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are reviewing the entire matter of pensions at present. We will be seeing legislation in the not-too-distant future.

If the member is asking me whether we should have the same legislation as Quebec in all regards, the answer is probably no. Quebec is looking at Ontario to do some of the things we are doing here. We have to tailor our solutions to the individual situation here.

As I said, I will take the point the member makes under advisement and share the results of our review with him.

SALE OF PATENTED LAND

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: In response to the question concerning the sale of leased lots on Fairbank Lake by Falconbridge Ltd., I want to reiterate my previous answer.

As the legal land owner, Falconbridge Ltd. has the right to subdivide and sell lots subject to the Planning Act approval given by the regional municipality of Sudbury. The authority to approve plans of subdivision in Sudbury was delegated to the regional municipality of Sudbury on August 1, 1978. The approval of the Falconbridge subdivision is entirely within the jurisdiction of the region. My ministry has no direct involvement or authority in this matter.

15:00

Mr. Martel: Since Inco, Falconbridge and other mining companies own hundreds of thousands of acres in the province, is this government prepared to remove the surface rights from the companies when we are talking about mines patent, so that they have only the mineral rights and so that where there is not going to be any surface work, they do not have the right to that? When we try to open even a dump up in the north, we have to get permission from the mining companies. Is the minister prepared to remove that right if they do not need the surface rights for mining purposes?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have already spoken to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) about this problem. This problem started about 50 years ago, when the government of the day gave those mines the right to subdivide these lands. I am talking with the Minister of Natural Resources about that problem.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Callahan: About two months ago, the Minister of Health, in announcements regarding new health facilities, allotted some 380 acute care beds and 200 chronic care beds to the region of Peel. Peel Memorial Hospital in Brampton still requires 120 acute care beds to complete its acute care allocation.

All of these matters were subject to the district health council reporting to the minister. That report was to be received some time in October. I would like to ask the minister, have we received the report from the district health council on that item yet?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the member for his question. It is important for all of us to understand that the process of planning for the institutional revitalization of our hospital sector has been progressing on par with what we had hoped. All of the health councils have indicated they will be meeting their objective of reporting back to me by the end of October. I am expecting very shortly a number of reports with respect to the allocation of those resources among communities.

I have to say to the honourable gentleman, however, that I am not aware at this point that the recommendations of the council in his area have come to the ministry. I will check on that to see whether they have been received in the last few days and get back to him with that advice.

Mr. Callahan: In addition, the minister indicated at the same time that there might well be an innovative health facility in that area. We have embarked upon a consultation report, which was referred by the Chinguacousy health services board to the district health council. That again was subject to some comment by the district health council to the minister. I would like to inquire whether that report is in yet.

Hon. Mr. Elston: At this point, I am unable to advise the honourable gentleman exactly what the health council has taken into consideration, although I am sure it is quite willing to do so and probably did take into account several proposals around its area of planning authority. I suspect that this was probably one of the items that came to its attention.

I am unable to tell the member today the extent of the recommendations, but I will check into it and see what the status of that report to me is and then get back to the member, so that he can have some idea of the time frame within which the ministry will be making a response.

FLOODING

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is undoubtedly working out a new position on the softwood lumber industry with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), I will address my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The minister is undoubtedly aware of the extensive damage that has recently occurred as a result of high water levels in the Great Lakes system. That damage has involved extensive cost and erosion to shorelines. Some roads have had to be completely abandoned in my municipality. There have been a great number of costs associated with the damage that has been done. While all this has been going on, we have been waiting somewhat patiently for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in concert with the Ministry of Natural Resources, to give some response to individuals and municipalities that have experienced this extensive cost related to the high water levels.

Will the minister indicate today what his ministry is prepared to do to undertake some form of co-operative partnership with municipalities to assist them in these tremendously high costs associated with the recent high water levels that we have just experienced and that we can anticipate we will be experiencing in the future as well?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This government already did something about it four or five months ago. We have extended the program until March 31, 1987, and we are now looking at a long-term policy. There is a short-term policy in place and we are looking at a long-term policy. Any municipalities that are having a flooding problem should address the ministry. We have responded to every municipal concern.

Mr. Brandt: The short-term policy is inadequate and the long-term policy is not going to help those who are experiencing very critical problems at present.

Is the minister indicating to me that if municipalities are experiencing above-normal costs associated with flooding in the Great Lakes system, they can make application to his ministry and he will work out some subsidy program to assist those municipalities? Is that what he is saying in terms of an immediate response to a critical problem?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We are doing this daily. We are trying to assist municipalities that are faced with flooding problems. We are doing it every day. I agree with the member that the guidelines are poor, but we inherited these guidelines. Now we are trying to improve them.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the minister responsible for pension policy, who is also the Treasurer, arising out of the answer tabled yesterday to question 335 in Orders and Notices, asking for information about surplus pension fund withdrawals from the Pension Commission of Ontario. The answer indicates that if a "plan is in surplus, then the employer may apply that surplus against the required current service cost without application to the pension commission."

In other words, companies can rip off the surplus of a pension fund as a substitute for their regular employer contributions. Is it the intention of the government -- surely it is not -- to allow that additional piece of legalized theft to continue in the Pension Benefits Act?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is referring to a situation where a surplus above and beyond the 125 per cent required under the regulations exists and where additional payments from the company concerned are forgone, so that the surplus above that point does not accumulate. I believe that is the present policy, but as the Premier and the minister have indicated, the matter is under review and we hope to have legislation before the House for consideration.

Mr. McClellan: Let me get this straight. The government is proposing a pension reform law which does not provide inflation protection, does nothing to end the legalized theft of pension surpluses and fails to protect workers against the kind of ripoffs that my colleague from Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) identified this afternoon. Even the vesting provisions are not retroactive, so all moneys invested until the end of this year will still be subject in perpetuity to the 10-and-45 rule. Is that the government's idea of pension reform? Is that the best it can come up with?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not know how even the fevered mind of the member could draw that conclusion from my answer, which I thought was rather innocuous. I indicated that we are aware of the situation the member brought to our attention, that we are concerned about it and are reviewing it and that we hope to introduce legislation.

15:10

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS

Mr. Sargent: For the record, I want to convey to the Solicitor General, for whom I have the greatest respect, my concern about the local jails up our way taking prisoners who have to go to hospital or to a funeral in handcuffs and leg irons. It is a system that is very medieval and we should put a stop to it. I hope the Solicitor General will have a look at that.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, will you have a look at that?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will be happy to have a look at anything the honourable member puts forward. May I suggest that we must look at such issues as the offence for which a person has been brought into our keeping. We try to use common sense and discretion at any time when restraints are needed. We are always looking.

Mr. Sargent: The fact behind this is a young chap who is in jail. His grandmother was dying. Two guards took him to the hospital in handcuffs and leg irons and he had to shuffle to the bedside and kiss her goodbye with handcuffs on. All our staff in the penal system should be aware that there should be a sense of decency in everything we do.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I did not hear a question.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Premier. There seems to be a significant difference of opinion between two members of the cabinet, which is not unusual. In March, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) told the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation provincial assembly, "We do not intend to fund private schools." In April, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) told the Kingston Whig-Standard, "I presume we will be providing funding in the private schools in the not-too-distant future." Will the Premier indicate to the House today which of his cabinet ministers was speaking for the government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: l will be happy to do that if the honourable member will tell me which of those guys opposite speaks for his party. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the frustration for a government in a minority situation that is attempting in a spirit of generosity to work with all the parties in this House, trying to accommodate their individual needs and their particular views on issues. Believe me, to have 17 different views on every single issue from the party opposite causes frustration for the government.

I want to be very clear. My colleague to the right is not a shrinking violet. He speaks for the government on educational policy. The member will be aware that he is in possession of the Shapiro report. The government is looking at it at the moment. It is not the government's policy at the moment. If the member has any further questions, he should direct them to my friend beside me.

Mr. Davis: On April 28, 1985, the Premier was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "The Liberal Party has advocated the establishment of a select committee of the Legislature to conduct open and public hearings into the manner in which public funding might be extended to alternative and independent schools." Now that the Shapiro report has been tabled, will the Premier give an undertaking to this House that the committee will be established prior to the spring session?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, this is an open government. We are always looking at any good suggestions that are around. I have no problems with committees examining this or any other subject around here. I just hope we can get on with some of the legislative work we have at hand. I ask the member to tell his colleagues that if we could avoid the backlog that is developing around here, and if they could help us out in getting some of the work done, we could examine some of these problems that are facing this province.

POLICING ON RESERVES

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister will be aware of the shocking and appalling incident that took place on May 16, when an elder, Moses Anderson, was assaulted and badly beaten in the remote northern reserve of Kasabonika Lake. The minister will be further aware that the number of reported, documented and serious violent incidents at that reserve has increased from two to 19 in less than a year.

For nine years, the people of Kasabonika have asked the government to comply with the most essential of services, which is police protection; yet in this incident it took people under his ministry, the Ontario Provincial Police, more than two days to acquiesce and to make a physical appearance on the reserve. When can we expect that the people of Kasabonika Lake will be given the attention and the services they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The matter of special constables for reserves is one, of course, that has a high priority in the government. As the member knows and as the House may well know, we have 132 of those constables at present.

The matter of funding for these constables is jointly shared between the federal government and the provincial government historically and has continued to be for some time. We have just recently been able to get the federal government to sign the 1985-86 agreement, which has now almost gone by. As late as September 25, we met with them on the 1986-87 agreement. To date they have not agreed to sign the agreement, because they insist on a clause that says "if funds are available." That is rather difficult.

Kasabonika Lake is the top priority for additional constables. We are personally committed to this as soon as we can receive funding and agreement through the federal government.

Mr. Pouliot: I have a letter dated May 29, 1986. It comes from the office of the great hope and beloved leader, the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It tells us again "in the not-too-distant future." We are about three steps short of eternity. The future can last a long, long time when we get letters from people such as the minister.

With respect, what is needed is not a compromise with the feds. Let us not bring in the Conservatives; let us not bring in the feds. The minister should do his job. He has that mandate. He has that responsibility. He should give us police protection.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Once again, I did not hear a question, Mr. Speaker.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. As the Attorney General will be well aware, the city of Brampton and the region of Peel, as probably the fastest-growing community in Canada, has a great need for courtroom facilities. I had an opportunity to attend at these courtroom facilities about six months ago with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. I understand the Attorney General himself has visited my riding with reference to this matter. I would like to have an update on where we are with reference to the additional court space for Peel region.

Hon. Mr. Scott: When we came into office, two courtrooms were on the list for Peel, which were required by the district court. The estimated value of that is $5 million, which is about a quarter of our budget.

The honourable member will be interested to hear that I went to Peel county and met the judges. We found two courtrooms they were not using, one in the basement of the sheriff's building and the other downtown in the old courthouse. Therefore, we are not going to be building those courtrooms, because they are not necessary.

In the provincial court, there is no doubt that the system is operating at capacity, and as the county grows -- and it grows annually in very large amounts -- we will have to develop a plan for the medium term. I hope very shortly to be able to announce to the House a program related to courtroom and courthouse construction.

Mr. Callahan: Since probably one of the answers to the problems would be to put all the court facilities together, I wonder whether the Attorney General would consider in his deliberations -- assuming it is agreeable to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) -- moving the registry office out of the northerly building and locating it somewhere else. That would provide additional space of some considerable size for further courtrooms without the immediate expenditure of those funds at this time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We will certainly consider that.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr. O'Connor: I also have a question for the Attorney General. Some 14 months ago, I brought to the Attorney General's attention the severe discrimination suffered by citizens living outside Metropolitan Toronto by virtue of the fact that, in dealing with their small claims court system, they are less fairly treated than those living inside Metro. As we know, within Metro, one can process small claims debts up to $3,000, but outside Metro that is not available to our citizens. The Attorney General assured me at the time that he was looking into the matter and would be taking care of it soon. Can he tell us when he might be taking care of that situation?

15:20

Hon. Mr. Scott: To be candid, the last time the honourable member asked me, I said I would be looking into the matter; I did not say the rest. I have looked into the matter, and the provision of this important service outside Metropolitan Toronto would be very expensive because it would involve the appointment of a substantial number of new judges to service the work, which is not necessary inside Metropolitan Toronto.

As a matter of budgetary constraint, we have to look very carefully at programs of this type. They are important, but they have to be weighed carefully against the needs of health care, education and a variety of other services. That is why we are not building the two courtrooms in Brampton. We found two others, and we are trying to be as careful as we can with the taxpayers' money. They pay taxes and they expect us to provide that careful consideration of need.

This is an important request, and we will try to evaluate carefully, along with other budgetary obligations of the government, if it is going to serve the people's interest properly, which we believe we are going to do.

Mr. O'Connor: This sounds like a broken record. This is what the Attorney General said to us 14 months ago.

Does the minister not understand that by implementing the higher level outside Metro there would be increased revenues to the small claims court system and decreased revenues -- savings, in other words -- to the higher court system? Further, in some cities, specifically Hamilton, Ottawa and Niagara Falls, there are already judges available to hear these cases and there would be no significant increase in costs in those areas and perhaps in some others.

Hon. Mr. Scott: When we have a supplementary question, I expect the honourable member to ask a different question from the first question. The member simply repeated the first question, and in the past 35 seconds or so my answer to it has not changed.

Let me point out what the honourable member knows, if he can remember back to the estimates process. To carry this program beyond Metropolitan Toronto, we would have to appoint approximately 17 new judges to do this work. With those appointments, we would have to make appropriate additional appointments in the court system. We would have to create more courtrooms.

The project is not a simple or cheap one to undertake. There are other competing demands on the taxpayers' dollars, and we are trying to evaluate this one and put it in priority against those other important demands.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In April 1986, workers were injured by exposure to coal tar contamination at the Lees Avenue site in Ottawa. I ask, on behalf of those workers and the interested public in Ottawa, where is the health and safety inspection report?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will have to check into whether an additional report was done, but I believe the honourable member may find that much of the matter that concerns the Lees Avenue site is a problem that falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). However, I will take the matter under advisement and check.

Whatever our responsibility is in the matter, I can assure the member that if reports needed to be done by our ministry, as opposed to the Ministry of the Environment, they were done. I will check into it and share the results with her.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for question period.

I have had a number of notes from members complaining about the heat in the chamber today. They certainly have a right to make some comment. It is extremely high. However, I must inform members that some time ago the fire alarms were going and we cleared the galleries. Nothing in particular took place. There might have been some factor that contributed to the trouble we are having with the cool air that is supposed to be coming into the chamber. I hope it will be redirected by tomorrow.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On October 15, I raised the issue of the delay in answering questions. On October 14, in response to a statement, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) made reference to questions concerning computer contracts, the answers to which were promised by October 10. When the member for Brantford raised that, the government House leader held up a stack of answers, which have not appeared in Hansard. At that point he held them up and said, "Here they are," but they were not in there.

The questions involved serious matters of computer contracts that were let by the government and that were of serious concern and the subject of allegations during committee hearings this summer. I would like to know when the stonewalling and coverup are going to cease. They have had lots of time to get the files and table the answers on those contracts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe the member could control himself and not get too hot under the collar with the hot temperatures we have in here. I hope the government House leader will take note of the request regarding the outstanding questions, as I am sure he has done in the past.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have certainly taken note of that, and I have heard the question asked before. I will respond as soon as I possibly can. I will be sure that the ministers responsible --

Mr. Harris: When the member for Brantford asked the question, the government House leader said, "Here they are." There is nothing in here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is completed.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Barlow: I have a petition signed by some 258 residents, mostly from Cambridge, but some from the suburbs, including Kitchener, Waterloo and Guelph.

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Ms. Hart: I wish to present a petition in respect of Bill 134. The petition was signed by 70 people in my riding of York East. The petitioners are all employees of Loblaws Ltd. on Moore Avenue.

The petition requests that the government of Ontario in

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act not exclude their place of business from the opportunity to sell beer and wine and that their grocery store be included in the definition of food stores eligible to sell beer and wine.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT /

LOI SUR L'ARBITRAGE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 139,

An Act to implement the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

L'hon. M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 139, Loi concernant la mise en application de la loi type sur l'arbitrage commercial international adoptée par la Commission des Nations Unies pour le droit commercial international.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill 140,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McLean moved first reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McLean: This private member's bill is designed to prevent what we refer to as double-dipping. It simply means that a member of this Legislature who retires cannot be appointed to a salaried position on a board or commission and continue to collect his or her pension benefits while being paid at the commission rate.

Ian Deans, the New Democratic Party member of Parliament, is a classic example of the type of double-dipping or, in his case, triple-dipping. I am trying to prevent this. He gets a pension from the Ontario Legislature and a pension from the federal government, and he holds down a $90,000-a-year federal appointment. There are other examples I can give members.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, we can accept a brief explanation, but I believe you should leave some of the other information until the bill is discussed on second reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amalgamate Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Last February, the directors of Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital publicly announced their desire to amalgamate. To make this possible, I then tabled Bill 129, which received first reading on July 10. We are now ready to proceed with second reading.

The two hospitals are among the finest in Canada. Both are excellent teaching institutions and are well known for their pioneering work. Just this month, on October 2, Toronto Western celebrated the 20th anniversary of its kidney transplant program. Toronto General has a long and impressive list of "firsts." Just this month, it began installing 1,000 computer terminals for Canada's first bedside patient information system.

Under this proposed legislation, Toronto General and Toronto Western would continue as public hospitals offering a broad range of health care services, but they would be governed by a single board and would be known as the Toronto Hospital. The objective of this amalgamation is to streamline their administration and produce significant savings, which the hospital plans to use to improve and expand service. The Ministry of Health supports that wholeheartedly.

I would like to note that these savings will come from more efficient administration and purchasing. A policy covering job security and seniority was passed by both hospital boards and distributed to every hospital employee. It states, "No employee shall lose their employment as a direct result of the merger."

This issue has been discussed by my officials and hospital representatives. It is also covered very clearly in the new hospital's personnel policy. Provincial labour law requires that existing collective agreements be respected in any amalgamation.

We are proceeding with this legislation because we fully expect that the amalgamation will improve the administration of both hospitals, that their employees will be adequately protected and, most important, that it will free up millions of dollars that can and will be put to use providing better health care for the people of the province.

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to indicate to the minister and the government that we will be supporting this bill. I took very seriously the comments of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) earlier today when he indicated his concern about the lack of progress with legislation. I want to indicate to the government, the government House leader and the Minister of Health that we will be supporting this bill. In the interests of making progress, we hope we will move through second reading today and perhaps to third reading at some point this afternoon, if that is the government House leader's wish.

There are a number of reasons, as the minister indicated, why it is necessary to expedite this bill and why it would be appropriate to move quickly. The examples of cost saving are rather encouraging. We are told that these cost savings could amount to as much as four or five per cent. On a combined budget of $250 million, the immediate savings could be as much $3.5 million to $5 million.

The minister mentioned the consolidated purchasing currently going on with the two hospitals. We are told that has already saved in excess of $400,000 and could lead to as much as $1 million in annual savings. The minister has indicated to the hospitals that any cost savings that result from the merger will be retained within the hospital's global budget and will not be taken back by the ministry or used to reduce the hospital's global budget in any way. In effect, that means better service, a better-equipped hospital and an improvement in the all-round health care delivery provided by those two excellent hospitals.

That sort of substantive evidence should be enough to encourage members in all parties to move quickly to have this bill receive third reading and royal assent and proclamation. We understand the government is going to allow this bill to go to committee for public hearings. I am not sure what the concerns are on the government's side, but we hope and trust that those who wish this bill to go to committee will indicate their support for that activity in the usual way, which I assume is 20 members standing in their places.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be supporting this bill on second reading. I want to make a few comments about the process leading up to the debate on this bill today and about why I think the bill should go to one of the committees of the Legislature for public hearings.

This bill was first shared with members of the opposition the day before the Legislature adjourned in the spring. At that time, there was an expectation that the bill could be introduced and somehow sent through first, second and third readings before the Legislature adjourned. Where that expectation came from and how anybody in his right mind could have thought we could pass a bill very quickly that was going to amalgamate two very large institutions is beyond me. It will be the first bill of its kind, given the size of these institutions, and may set a precedent as to how these matters are dealt with; there are other institutions in Toronto looking at amalgamation.

15:40

How we can pass it that quickly is beyond me. It seems to me the attitude some at the hospital have taken is that we should pass the enabling legislation and leave this autonomous board to do, in terms of policy, what it wants with jobs and how this matter is implemented with regard to its employees. As the people who are going to pass this piece of legislation, we have an obligation to make sure it is done right. As the body that funds hospitals in this province, we have an obligation to make sure it is being done properly.

We have an obligation to discuss this matter with more than just the hospital board. There are employees and unions involved. Has the minister ever met with the unions involved in this amalgamation of the two hospitals? I met with the unions back in early September. To my surprise, the unions had never been invited in by the administrations of the hospitals to discuss exactly what was going to happen and how it was going to affect them. There had been no negotiations about how amalgamation was going to take place.

At that time, the official policy of how to deal with personnel matters had not been passed by both boards. There had been, through newsletters and so forth, some indication of how personnel matters would be dealt with but no direct communication with the representatives of the various unions or employee representatives at the various hospitals. Yet the hospitals expected us to pass this piece of legislation weeks before September even occurred.

Apparently, there now has been one meeting and some discussion with the various unions, but I am not convinced that those were satisfactory. I understand that when this Legislature dealt with regional government legislation, there were all sorts of guarantees built into the legislation about how employee groups were going to be dealt with and offering some guarantees. I think a committee of the Legislature is going to have to look at things such as contracting out and whether or not we can insert this employee policy into the legislation, to make sure that policies the hospital boards are offering its employees are put in legislation.

Policies can be developed and approved one day and changed the next day. Legislation is much more difficult to change. If the hospitals are willing to offer these kinds of guarantees to its employees, perhaps as many as possible should be inserted into the legislation to offer the employees the kinds of protection the hospital boards say they are willing to offer. I do not think there has been adequate consultation with the unions and the employee groups. I do not think there has been adequate discussion here in the Legislature. I ask the minister, how much is the combined budget for these two hospitals?

Mr. Andrewes: It is $250 million.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We are talking about $250 million, we are talking about many employees and we are talking about communities. I think there needs to be some discussion about how this is going to occur. I would like to look at the membership of the board of directors of this hospital. I notice there is no change in how the board is going to be selected. When I look at hospital boards across this province, I am not convinced they adequately reflect the communities in which they reside.

I just went through a lengthy process with one of the hospitals in my home community to try to get it to accept one labour representative on the hospital board. The only way we got that accepted was that they were trying to raise $11 million locally for a new chronic care hospital, which the minister will be announcing tomorrow in our home community.

The minister's staff phoned my staff yesterday to invite me to go to Windsor with them since there was going to be some announcement made. They could not tell us what the announcement would be, but the press in Windsor have all been told by somebody in the minister's office. The press phoned, told me that the Ministry of Health people told them what the announcement was going to be tomorrow and asked for my reaction. The minister's staff cannot share that with the local members, but they can share it with the local press.

However, with regard to hospitals, I think we have to look at opening up the process. It seems to me that in some cases, hospital boards think or try to operate as private corporations when the reality is they are public corporations. Information should be shared with communities, which should be able to participate in developing those criteria and policies if hospitals are to be community-based and have a partnership with the community.

I believe very strongly that in the rationalization of services the amalgamation of hospitals does make sense in certain circumstances. In my own community, if we had one hospital board instead of four, there would be better planning on a local basis and less competition between hospitals. Instead of every hospital wanting to have a computerized axial tomography scanner, where if one hospital gets one, the next one needs to have it -- and the competition seems to exist -- there would be more rationalization and rational planning on a local basis.

When we are dealing with huge institutions, teaching hospitals such as the Toronto Western Hospital and the Toronto General Hospital, the accrued savings will be substantial.

I want to make sure that the process we go through as legislators and the legislation that is finally passed -- and it will be passed -- will be adequate and will be model legislation for other hospitals that may be considering the same type of action.

I do not expect this bill will have to remain in committee for a long time. I am told by the chairman of the social development committee that next Monday and Tuesday will be available in this committee. I believe we can listen to the management of the hospital and the employee groups in the committee next week, deal with the bill clause by clause and report the bill back next week. We are really only talking about a delay of one week from the time the bill was introduced in the spring. We are not talking about a great delay.

I understand the original plan was to have the founding meeting of the new hospital board tonight, but it was not our responsibility to make sure that the legislation was the number one priority when the House reconvened. Revenue bills were put in Orders and Notices last week, not the Toronto Hospital Act.

We are dealing with it today, and it would be unreal for anyone to expect that we could go through second and third readings of this bill on the same day. That is not even provided for in the rules. It would completely bypass one of the major partners in this process, the employee groups. After all, if this is going to work, obviously the employee groups have to be fully behind the amalgamation. By referring the bill to committee, there will be a better understanding of the process, where the savings will accrue, how they will accrue and what the employee policy that has been passed by the boards means to the employees of the two hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has raised a number of issues of which there will be some discussion. There are also two or three housekeeping matters, a change of words or something, that will have to be looked at when this matter is in committee, but I expect the debate concerning the passage of this bill on second reading will find that all parties are in favour of it and we should probably proceed with it.

I have one comment with respect to the system of public hospitals. The system itself is based upon autonomous boards. Each of us at any given time has made speeches in support of that system and that style of operation of our hospital system in Ontario. We must always keep in mind that those boards must be allowed to act as freely and as independently as possible, to make those wise management decisions which they, as trustees of their communities and of public facilities, deem to be in the best interest.

That being the case, I urge all members to vote for passage of this bill on second reading and I look forward to seeing it move to the social development committee afterwards.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

15:50

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with the next item of business, I found it disturbing and passing strange that none of the House leaders of any of the three parties saw fit to recognize the 15th anniversary today of nine members of the Legislature who were first elected on October 21, 1971.

I can understand the government House leader failing to mention the occasion, because there are no Liberals on that particular list, but I would like to pay tribute to the following members in alphabetical order: the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for York West (Mr. Leluk), the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and the member for Lanark (Mr.

Wiseman), all of whom are celebrating their 15th anniversary in this crucible of democracy, the Ontario Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Same old gang.

Mr. Foulds: It may be old, but it is not a gang. I just want to say it has been a personally rewarding experience for me and, I think, for all members of the Legislature. Few people recognize just how rewarding an experience public life is.

I want to pay particular tribute to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who is here with us today, because I believe he has served northern Ontario well and because he is the only other one of my colleagues who were elected on that day who is in the Legislature at this moment. I am sure all of the others are attending to legislative and parliamentary business in other forums at the present time.

Mr. Harris: On the same point, on behalf of our party, I too would like to proffer congratulations to those who are on the cash-for-life program. That is the 15-year achievement award for years of very difficult service on behalf of their constituents.

The member for Port Arthur has read the names into the record and I will not re-read them, but let me indicate, as he has mentioned, that he was surprised that none of the House leaders mentioned this earlier today. I know these members all wanted to participate in the debate today. To ensure that, we were going to do this at 6:30, at which time I was sure we would have full attendance and they would all be here to hear it.

However, on behalf of our party, I join in congratulating the survivors. As a member from northern Ontario, I offer special congratulations to the member for Port Arthur and to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin as the two members from northern Ontario. We work twice as hard to represent ridings in northern Ontario, and that is equivalent to 30 years of service. Special congratulations to those two members.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would certainly like to join the other two honourable members in extending congratulations. I am sorry the Liberal list is somewhat deficient in this regard.

Mr. Foulds: We are not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was not one of our banner election years, if members want to know the truth, because that was the one when the then Premier, William Davis, said there would not be another nickel for the Catholic schools. Actually, he made that announcement, then called a press conference and an election, and said he hoped separate school funding would not be an issue.

Certainly, his spirit was in the right place. In the event, we did talk about it a little bit, and the more we talked about it, the more members we lost. However, we survived, and here we are with that issue established to the satisfaction of all.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. I should have mentioned the member for Nickel Belt as one of those who put in 30 years of service in that 15-year period as well.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 8:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1986, and ending December 31, 1986, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to say to the honourable members that this is a routine motion and that the period of time envisaged in the motion is well within that which is enabled by the rules. We expect during that period of time about $5.1 billion to be spent on the routine expenditures referred to in the motion itself.

I know the honourable members will confine their remarks to the specific aspects of the interim supply and not allow themselves the luxury of branching out and talking about anything that comes to mind. With that pious hope put before the members, I sit back with a blank page ready to make notes so that I can respond to the matters they wish to raise at this time.

Mr. McCague: I ask the Treasurer whether he happens to be dreaming when he says that everyone will stick exactly to the subject. That they will do, but many things are also of interest to us as members and as legislators that are directly related to the motion he has just put.

I am sure there is a history to it, but it is always interesting to me that the motion starts off by mentioning that we will pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments. I am not sure what the proportion of salaries is in the total $5.1 billion we are being asked to vote today, but I am sure the other payments are much more significant in amount than the salaries are.

I have yet to be able to extract from the Treasurer an explanation of the moneys he has asked us to vote towards hospital construction for this year. He made much of the $850 million he was putting into hospital construction, but he has never really been able to clarify for us whether it is the same old program and he has just extended it for a full eight years, or whether new money is going into the construction of much-needed hospital beds. At the speed at which the Minister of Health (Mr.

Elston) is travelling with his approval of beds, be they acute, hospital or otherwise, I doubt very much whether any additional money is being spent in this fiscal year or whether it is as much as has been the norm in years past.

I brought to the attention of the Treasurer and the Minister of Health the very urgent need for the funding of 10 more beds in the Collingwood hospital, beds that are very badly needed. People are spending as much four days in the hallways or in the emergency ward.

The ministry has also been very slow, probably because of lack of funding, in paying attention to several requests for approval to proceed with the planning for a new Orangeville hospital some years down the road, a very urgent need in view of the condition of the present facility.

16:00

The Treasurer has all kinds of windfall money this year, as he has already acknowledged, yet I have had great difficulty in persuading the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation to approve a grant for the construction of a new arena in the town of Stayner. The arena there has been condemned, and this is causing many young people in the area to go without ice sports this winter.

I am sure the Treasurer has a nest-egg nicely hidden away that he will use for whatever purpose happens to come up in the next 18 months. He has higher-than-expected tax revenues and higher-than-expected transfer payments. He has not told us what he intends to do with those funds.

I will suggest some things he might do with some of the $5.1 billion. I do not know whether any of that is not dedicated at this time. We heard much from the Treasurer in years past about the employment and unemployment situation across the province, in particular in Brantford, very close to his home. I suggest to the Treasurer that there are as many people under threat of layoff and laid off in northern Ontario as there were in Brantford at that time. He does not seem to have the same concern for municipalities in northern Ontario that he explained to the Treasurer of the day in regard to Brantford.

The now Treasurer was very interested in whipping Ontario Hydro into line. If he has been successful in doing anything, it is not obvious to anybody on this side of the House or, I suggest, to any taxpayer in Ontario.

The Treasurer has from time to time talked about the credit rating, which he was singularly successful in having lowered. He takes some pride that it is costing only $6 million to $10 million to fund that lowering of the credit rating. With his increased revenues this year, I would have thought that with any kind of prudent budgeting we would by now have had our triple-A credit rating back.

He mentions paying the salaries of civil servants. That, of course, we must do. We must also pay 1,500 more civil servants than was the case in 1985. The Treasurer will be well aware that the government that preceded him was very cautious and earnestly did what it felt the population of Ontario wanted, which was a lowering of the number of civil servants. Over a 10-year period it was reduced by some 7,000.

However, since the new government took over, the number has increased quickly from 80,142 in 1985 to 81,592 in 1986. It would not surprise me in the least that the number would be even greater than that if we were able to get the most up-to-date figures. One of the reasons this is the case is that it is said the combined cost of the budgets of the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office have risen by 45 per cent over the past year. I can only presume that part of the 45 per cent is in salaries.

The Treasurer always had a great love for the dome, or the stadium corporation, as it is known. I hope he is diligent in his determination that not more than $30 million of provincial funds will be dedicated to that project. I suggest there is a way the Treasurer could use some of his windfall profits or income this year to do some things not only in my riding and his but also in the other 123.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is nothing in mine. The member is getting a courthouse.

Mr. McCague: That is correct. I want to thank the Treasurer very much for that. That was a well-orchestrated deal. After seven years, I am glad to see they will be breaking the sod next Monday. If the Treasurer has not been invited, they would be very happy to have him hold one end of the shovel; I am not sure which end.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am better with a fork.

Miss Stephenson: We know. We know what kind of fork too.

Mr. McCague: The previous minister always speaks with forked tongue.

Miss Stephenson: No; straight tongue.

Mr. McCague: Although we will go along with this, with the desire to have such an open government, I hope that during the consideration of the Treasurer's estimates much more information will be forthcoming on what he has in unanticipated increased revenues and how he intends to spend them. Will he please tell us at some point during those estimates what the actual dollars are for health, how he intends to spend that money and whether he sees any delay in the spending of those funds?

Mr. Dean: I will hardly be as succinct and to the point as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) -- I always think of him as the Chairman of Management Board, but it is out of his control now, unfortunately.

I wish to make a few comments at this point about some of the Treasurer's policies as reflected in the activities or lack of activities of some of the other ministries. Two are of specific interest to my own riding of Wentworth, and the third is of interest to every riding in the province. In fact, the first two should be also, because they are an indication of the kind of foot-dragging and inattention we seem to be getting from this government in so many ways.

As for the motion we are debating, I agree that we have a liability, as an assembly, to make sure that those who work for us in the other programs that go on are paid. I am not saying the motion is inappropriate or should not be supported -- it should be supported -- but there are some things it does not mention that should be brought to our attention.

The first item I want to speak about -- please do not take my water away. Never take water away from a speaking member, especially when it is this hot.

Mr. Foulds: Go ahead; take it away from him.

Mr. Dean: Does the member mean I might --

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, take it away. I do not think he deserves water -- no water, no food, nothing.

Mr. Dean: Solitary confinement. That is a foreshadow of what would happen if a certain party were in power.

Mr. Breaugh: We would put the member in a jail cell and make him listen to his own speeches for 30 days.

Mr. Dean: I would rather listen to those than some others I might mention.

16:10

The first item is a matter of interest for the Minister of Health. It involves what is known as the St. Joseph's ambulatory care centre. It is located in the part of Hamilton-Wentworth that at the moment is in the riding of Hamilton East but under redistribution will be in the riding of Wentworth East. That is what my riding will be called following the next election.

St. Joseph's is a very innovative health care centre. It is an alternative to a full-fledged hospital, which some people would like to see constructed at some point but which is not justified at present, according to the standards the Ministry of Health imposes. This is not an expensive structure, in the style we have seen in health care nowadays. Its total cost amounted to a mere $15 million, some of which will be raised by the very interested and concerned local population.

If members of the government besides the Minister of Health are not aware of St. Joseph's, they should refresh their memories on the nature of this health care centre. It will combine in one location not only the sort of emergency and ambulance services we expect in smaller health care centres but also many other services, such as diabetic care, audiology and mental health services. The district health unit will be there as well as many other things that I will not take time to mention now.

This new centre was booming along in its development and progress until May 1985, when something seems to have cast a blight on it. Since that time, not much progress has been made because of terrible delays on the part of the officials of the Ministry of Health in approving each succeeding stage of the planning.

Prior to May 1985, we had the personal commitment of both the then Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), and the Minister of Health of the day, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), that the province's share of the funding for this excellent and efficiently designed facility was taken care of. This followed a great deal of study and planning to see what should go into the unit.

Since the present government took office, mum has been the word with regard to getting any kind of hard and fast assurance that the necessary funding is secured. What is needed is direction from the Treasurer. Although he is listening to another member of the family over there, I know he is hearing what I have to say. He should direct the minister to take a personal interest in this important facility and speed along the approval stages. It has been as slow as molasses so far, and our people deserve better than that.

Of a more local nature, the second item that needs government action is what is called locally the Red Hill Creek Expressway. For those who are not familiar with it, this is a main road that is needed in the Hamilton-Wentworth area for about 22 kilometres, eight of which would be of freeway style and the balance of which would be an urban arterial road. It would make a connection from the Queen Elizabeth Way at the east end of Hamilton, circuiting south and east out of Hamilton to Highway 403 as it travels between Hamilton and Brantford. It is a roadway that has been under study for longer than I like to mention. It has had at least 10 years of extensive study.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not back to when the member was a Liberal, I trust.

Mr. Dean: Not quite that far back, no. Those were ox-cart days, with politics to match.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Wentworth is younger than the Treasurer.

Mr. Dean: I thank the member for York Mills for what I hope was a compliment.

In any case, without going through all the details of this again, it had extensive professional study, political input and decision-making over that period. This process culminated in nine months of public hearings before the consolidated hearings board, which as many members may know is a combination of the Ontario Municipal Board and the Environmental Assessment Board.

This was the first of the consolidated hearings in Ontario, as a matter of fact. Perhaps that accounts for some of the time that was consumed in the hearings. It extended for nine months, with expert witnesses from the side of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, which was the proponent, and some kind of evidence and a lot of cross-examination by solicitors for certain people who objected. The decision was made by the board almost exactly one year ago; I think it was October 25, 1985. It was immediately appealed to the cabinet of this province by two or three of the objectors.

How long does one expect an important issue for the second largest region in Ontario to be sitting on the shelf or in the drawers or behind the backs of the members of provincial cabinet? Where is the positive action, and where is their commitment to the continued funding of this?

I hope I am not being deliberately partisan or parochial on this, but it appears to me the government is deliberately ignoring the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. Perhaps they are jealous of its success in spite of government indifference. I do not know why.

This continued delay and inaction is almost worse than action in the wrong way, because one does not know where it is, although I am not suggesting for a minute that action in the wrong way is acceptable. This slowness impedes growth and progress in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, especially in the continuing, almost superhuman, efforts of the regional economic development people to attract business and industry to Hamilton-Wentworth.

It should all be considered as part of a longer-term strategy, which was well in place under the previous government, to de-emphasize the attraction of Toronto and its surrounding region -- not that there is anything wrong with that, but the size of Toronto and its suburbs already causes unique problems. There will be help, not only for the rest of the province but also for the city and surrounding boroughs of Toronto, to encourage and speed up the development of facilities and projects that will make it more attractive for industry and business to go elsewhere.

In saying this about the Hamilton-Wentworth region, I am well aware that the same needs are present in the regions east and north of Toronto and in the areas of Ontario farther west. I am using this as a symptom and a symbol of the kind of attention that should be paid by this government to major programs and projects that are required and sometimes have no direct, immediate effect upon the centre of the universe here at Queen's Park and in the city of Toronto.

The third item I wish to touch on briefly, which has a very important bearing on the funding and which is noted in the resolution we is care for the elderly. All the members of the Legislature will know our caucus has had a task force studying the matter of care for the elderly, holding many hearings around and about Ontario and getting valuable input from the people of all parts of the province, stretching from Thunder Bay to Ottawa and from London to Barrie.

All parts of Ontario can contribute to the study of what is required and what is most needed for the elderly in a period just before, as we are now well aware, there is going to be a burgeoning development in numbers of those over 65 in our society. It is important to know, because all the things that are going to be required will need some funding, with the exception of some of the volunteer services that will be offered gratis by some of us perhaps and certainly by many people in our respective communities. I want to touch on just one part of it because it is a very broad subject and I do not want to spend all the rest of the afternoon talking about it.

16:20

Particularly, I want to talk about home care and institutional care. Most people who study the issue recognize that the more we support home care so that elderly residents can stay in their own homes as long as they are capable or so desire and the less emphasis we put on institutions as the first line of service to the elderly, the better off everybody is, particularly the elderly themselves, and their families as an immediate byproduct. Eventually, all of us benefit.

I will not go into the reason for all that -- some of it is self-evident -- but all of us have an innate feeling we would like to stay in our own homes as long as we can. When we become part of the group we are discussing now, I think we will still feel the same way.

The government has said home care has to be beefed up. We support that. As a matter of fact, our discussion paper on care for the elderly came out with a very strong recommendation for that prior to the present government making its position known. It must be beefed up all over Ontario, not only in actual quantity but also in the way in which it is available.

On the task force on care for seniors, one of the things we heard consistently wherever we went was that home care in all its different aspects is available too little of the time. A person can be eligible for it for a certain number of hours a day or week under certain conditions, but there are times when it is hardly available at all. This is a definite blight on the way in which those who are tempted to stay at home as long as possible look at their lives. They have this uneasiness about whether anybody will be around to give them the extra help they need.

That is the first thing I will say about home care; that it needs to be made available more hours per day and more hours per week.

With regard to institutional care, we are not going to get away from having institutions for some time. I hope nobody is under the illusion that home care, even if it were immediately doubled or tripled, would remove the need for institutions. We hope people will be able to stay in their own homes much longer and therefore not require institutional care until later in life, but there will come a time for many of the residents of our province when they will need some type of institutional care because the home setting will no longer be appropriate.

Home care is going to be an add-on in many respects. The recognition that we also need more institutional care has to be dealt with in the budget, in the payments the Treasurer has to look after. The use of institutional care that readily comes to mind, besides hospitals where chronic care is given, is the nursing homes and their neighbours, the homes for the aged, whether they are operated by municipalities or by charitable institutions.

As many members know, there is a discrepancy in the amount of support the government provides for a resident in a nursing home compared to a resident in a home for the aged. It amounts now to a difference of between approximately $49 a day and $66 a day. That kind of cost and support, a portion of which is paid by the government, will have to be amended if we are going to succeed in increasing the quality of care we expect from nursing homes. Many of them were never designed physically or in a programmatic way for the kind of residents they now find themselves forced to accept.

That is going to go on at an accelerating and heavier rate as the years unfold, because if the government does succeed in bringing in home care to the much greater extent desired by a lot of people, and as our caucus urges, then more citizens are going to be staying in their homes longer and will probably be in a frailer and less healthy condition when they finally go into homes for the aged or nursing homes. We are talking about more dollars, and the discrepancy at present between the subsidies for the homes for the aged and the subsidies for nursing homes should be eliminated. We are talking about roughly the same kind of care to the same sort of residents.

While I am still considering that aspect of care for the elderly, nursing homes themselves, as well as homes for the aged, are in short supply. There is hardly a community in Ontario where there is not a pent-up demand for some kind of location where elderly patients can go to receive the kind of care it is no longer possible to give them in their own homes.

In Hamilton-Wentworth alone, there is an identified need for 150 additional nursing home beds. This is not a figure that just came out of the sky. We have a district health council which takes a great deal of interest in this kind of need amongst the other things it deals with, and we also have the first and one of the best assessment and placement co-ordination services in Hamilton-Wentworth; so I am confident this figure is the result of careful study and diagnosis of the actual needs of the patient.

I say to the Treasurer and the Minister of Health, who is not here at the moment, that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth appreciate the 212 additional chronic care beds the minister announced in August, I believe, at Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals and St. Peter's Centre in Hamilton. Those are badly needed and will help to alleviate the shortage because of the domino effect from patients being inappropriately placed when we do not have enough beds of the right kind.

However, that is only a start, and I want to leave the Treasurer with a question. Considering all the other responsibilities, some of which are listed in this resolution we have now, that are important in his role, when is he going to do his part to break the logjam in providing increased and improved care for the elderly?

Mr. Ashe: I hope I will have the attention of the Treasurer in this important debate for interim supply. I have a few observations I would like to make and a few questions I am going to leave him with. Knowing how accurate, complete and judicious he is, I am sure he will be able to respond in due course to all the questions I pose.

I suppose one of the first things we have to be considering when we are talking about the authorization for government to spend another $5.1 billion is to look at the man who oversees this kind of money, the Treasurer, who has asked for this authority.

I took the opportunity, at least in a roundabout way, of going down to the local service station in downtown St. George recently and asking people quite familiar with a local neighbour called the Treasurer, the House leader, the acting Chairman of Management Board and so on, what kind of person was he compared to the kind of person he currently is?

It was a rather a long dialogue. I must say there were some who generally had a lot of good things to say. There were a few on the other side. I guess when it came right down to it, they said: "We used to know a fellow who was considered frugal, who really worried, we thought, about everybody's money, including his own. We thought he would be the kind of person to whom we would entrust the taxpayers' dollars in this great province of ours."

16:30

Where was the difference? Obviously, this was it. When they saw the budgets the Treasurer brought down, when they read in the paper and heard a few things from the opposition from time to time about the moneys that were being spent by the government and about the overhead costs of running the government, they were not quite sure this was the same member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) whom they used to know.

I assured them that though he has a little different prodding, a different direction and gets pushed hither and thither, he is the same guy. Maybe he has lost some of the frugality, if that is the right word -- and I will ask the former teacher in that regard -- the frugality of younger days in running the family operation and the personal pocket book when it comes to administering and overseeing the great sums of money that are the responsibility of the provincial Treasury.

What bothers me and what I hope in short order will bother the people and the taxpayers of Ontario is the philosophy this government picked up very quickly. Knowing where some of its advice came from, we know how it happened. It used to be carried on by an administration that gratefully came to an end in Ottawa in early 1984. I purposely did not say the fall of 1984; I said early 1984. That was an era that started in about 1968. It put in place and showed to the people of Canada and the taxpayers of Ontario the philosophy of spend, spend, spend, the philosophy that if you have a problem and throw enough of the taxpayers' money at it, maybe it will go away.

Now it is leaking out that a lot of the advice about setting up the new administration came from people who were considered major advisers and backroom boys of that administration in Ottawa. They helped to set the foundation of the present administration. We know where the philosophy came from. We all thought -- the people in the Shell station in downtown St. George thought -- and hoped on behalf of the taxpayers that a frugal Treasurer would avoid that kind of advice and take care of the taxpayers' money in Ontario as though it were his own. This has not happened.

I will be very honest. Some of the next things I am going to say are somewhat repetitive. I said them last time. I asked the questions the last time we talked about the budget and discussed interim supply. It is really to ask the overseer, the acting Chairman of Management Board at the moment as well as the Treasurer, how he can substantiate in his mind the growth in size of the public service in his short-term administration to date, how can he justify and oversee the growth of ministerial office staff throughout government.

Mr. Martel: Instead of by contract? You did it by contract if you could not cover it.

Mr. Ashe: It does not matter how it is, contract or as civil servants. The Treasurer should take the trouble to look at each and every contract and each and every civil service position, if any, in effect within the ministers' offices, not just his own. He probably runs a relatively frugal one, although I understand one of the ministries he is overseeing is far from frugal. It is the one just down the hall from the Treasurer's office. I understand there is a huge staff still sitting around there, even though there is no minister. In any event, I am getting a little off the subject.

I sincerely feel the Treasurer would be amazed if he took it upon himself to get the facts on the size of the staff of the various ministers' offices and those of the parliamentary assistants and the greatly increased, grandiose dollars being paid to those staff, considering the fact that virtually right across the board the salary ranges were increased by about $10,000 after the present government came to power, compared to the previous administration's comparable salaries. His frugality would once again come to the surface and he would want to do something about it.

I appreciate he may not have the figures, and I do not expect the answer today, but I am interested in seeing not only the growth that has taken place, which I think is substantive in numbers and is surely substantive in dollars, but also the amount that may have been expended in the past year for changes in those same offices. In many cases, I suspect it is to expand the size of the offices to handle all these new bodies, but that is another