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

October 11, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

UNITED WAY

SLOVAK GRADUATION BALL

BOATING SAFETY

ROLLING THUNDER THEATRE COMPANY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

CHILDREN HELPING CHILDREN

VISITOR

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL-IN-THE-HOME PROGRAM

RESPONSES

HOSPITAL-IN-THE-HOME PROGRAM

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TORONTO BAPTIST SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1989

GRAND VALLEY RAILWAY CO INC ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Mr Laughren: There was rejoicing in Sudbury recently when this government announced that there would be funding for the Sudbury neutrino observatory to the tune of $7.6 million. The project will observe neutrinos deep underground at the Creighton mine near Sudbury.

The international scientific community is excited because there is a lot we do not know about neutrinos and there is much to learn. What we do know, however, is that this project is going to put Sudbury on the map in the scientific community and will attract scientists to Sudbury from around the world for years to come. It will encourage and stimulate research at Laurentian University and probably at Cambrian College as well.

You can imagine our surprise, however, when we learned that all the money, the $7.6 million, is going to come from the northern Ontario heritage fund, not from the Premier’s technology fund. “Oh no,” Mr Kwinter said. “If it is not cutting down trees or digging up ores, it must not be right for northern Ontario.” I did not come here to bury Caesar. I came here to praise Caesar and to say that it was appropriate the money should come; however, not from the northern Ontario heritage fund because that is going to mean other northern Ontario projects are shortchanged. This money should have come from the Premier’s technology fund, not from the northern Ontario heritage fund.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Jackson: Violence against women is emerging as one of the most serious problems ever to confront modern society. A study released yesterday by Linda McLeod to an international urban safety conference indicates that one million Canadian women are abused by their spouses each year, that one in four women in Canada can expect to be sexually assaulted at some time and that 15 per cent of all homicides are murders of women by their husbands.

This study observes that women are responding to the ever real danger in which they often find themselves by imposing restrictions on their actions and those of their children.

Linda McLeod, an expert on battered women, concludes that to reduce violence against women, we must not only encourage nonviolent attitudes, push security-conscious planning and start broad-based community action groups, but in addition, governments must show greater support for community services that deal with violence against women.

Because of government underfunding, the Hamilton and area Sexual Assault Centre recently cancelled important programs that helped to rehabilitate victimized women. To date, the new Solicitor General (Mr Offer) has failed to respond. Linda McLeod’s study should remind the Solicitor General and his government of their responsibilities to the women of this province to fund adequately those services that women depend on.

Women who live in fear and who suffer the consequences of violence need to know that these centres are funded properly and are delivering the full range and care that women need. This government has clearly failed to let the women of Ontario know that their problems are understood and that they are being acted upon.

UNITED WAY

Mr Chiarelli: One in four people in Ottawa-Carleton benefit in some way from United Way agencies. The volunteer pin I am wearing symbolizes people helping people. I have learned since my election that governments do not touch people. People touch people. The 51 agencies in Ottawa-Carleton reach out in many ways and are the front lines of a large extended family, which is our community of Ottawa-Carleton,

United Way agencies help the blind, the elderly, the disabled and many less fortunate people of all ages. I urge the people of Ottawa-Carleton to become part of the United Way family. Call the United Way and please offer your time and assistance. Help keep Ottawa-Carleton friendly, humane and just a nice place to live. Help the United Way. I know my Ottawa-Carleton colleagues support the United Way directly and trust that all MPPs will get behind United Way campaigns across the province. Together, it helps all of us.

SLOVAK GRADUATION BALL

Mr Kormos: Last Friday, 6 October, the women’s committee of the Canadian Slovak World Congress conducted its fifth annual Slovak graduation ball in Rexdale and I was pleased to be a guest at that event.

Five years ago, the women of the Slovak World Congress set out to establish an event that would strengthen the ties among Slovak Canadian youth with their ethnic community. They initiated the annual graduation ball, both to recognize the achievements of Slovak youth and to provide an opportunity for them to meet with each other and to renew old acquaintances.

The unflagging dedication and hard work of volunteers like Mary Biason of Bolton, the secretary of the women’s committee, has resulted in an annual function that is outstanding. Every year, Slovak Canadian youth who have excelled are honoured. Young Slovak Canadians from across Ontario participate.

This year, I am proud to tell members that seven young Canadians from Welland-Thorold were among those young people. These are Natalie Vasko from Centennial Secondary School; Marla Ivan, graduate of Notre Dame College; Veronica Vasko, graduating from Brock University; Shelley Kiss, also graduating from Brock University; Mark Csele, a graduate of the University of Waterloo; Kevin Kiss, a graduate of Brock University, and Tom Pastirik, a graduate of the University of Western Ontario.

These young people are proud of their Slovak heritage. The Slovak Canadian community, as is the whole province, is proud of them. I know this Legislature joins me in wishing every one of them the very best for the future.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr McLean: My statement concerns my private member’s Bill 8, the Motor Boat Operators’ Licensing Act, which received first reading on 8 May 1989.

This bill would require those wishing to operate motor boats larger than 25 horsepower to either have some form of driver’s licence, written examination or complete a motor boat operation course. As well, this bill sets age limits for licensing, makes it an offence to operate a boat carelessly or while impaired, and it gives police the authority to enforce the same operation of motor boats in as much as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of vehicles on roads and highways in Ontario.

Boating mishaps have occurred with more than 300 deaths over the last five years. I am a boater myself and I really do not like the necessity of imposing tough regulations on our waterways, but stupidity and carelessness have made this type of legislation inevitable.

Increased congestion on our waterways and a new breed of damn-the-consequences boaters have brought it on themselves by demonstrating that they either do not care or do not know the fundamentals and courtesies of safe boating in Ontario.

It was interesting to see a newspaper

article this summer in which the Premier (Mr Peterson) expressed his concern about the growing number of boating accidents and the mounting death toll on our waterways. I look forward to receiving the support of all members of the Legislature to ensure that Bill 8 receives speedy passage.

ROLLING THUNDER THEATRE COMPANY

Mr Neumann: I am pleased to rise today to invite all members to a very special event, the first performance at Queen’s Park of the Rolling Thunder Theatre Company from Brantford. Tomorrow, at 1215 in the Ontario Room, this group of talented actors will be putting on a show which I encourage all members to attend. Along with the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins), I am proud to co-sponsor this event.

Rolling Thunder is a group of actors who operate out of Participation House in Brantford and is composed of both disabled and, as they would say, the “normals.” The group has performed right across Ontario, in the United States and elsewhere in Canada. Their productions are intended to entertain and raise awareness about challenges faced by the disabled. I have been fortunate enough to see their past couple of performances and I can attest to the fact that they succeed in achieving both goals.

For those of us who are fortunate enough to live without the physical and attitudinal challenges faced by the disabled, the performances of Rolling Thunder provide an opportunity to gain insight into what it is like to face these difficulties day in and day out.

I am delighted that Rolling Thunder is coming to do this special performance tomorrow. All members will find their show to be both entertaining and enlightening.

The minister and I viewed their debut performance in Brantford last week and I can assure members it is a performance they will not forget.

See you tomorrow at 1215.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Wildman: Last week the provincial government approved a $3-million flood relief program for farmers in Essex county and the regions of Niagara and Haldimand-Norfolk. This relief program would help farmers offset interest charges as a result of delayed payments on operating loans.

There is no question that severe weather conditions last spring and summer required additional government assistance to compensate farmers for losses over and above amounts available to them through the crop insurance programs. However, the estimated losses from the extensive rains in July in Essex county alone were between $15 million and $17 million, particularly to soybean and tobacco crops.

Initially, the former Minister of Agriculture and Food argued that farmers should have crop insurance to cover their total losses and that thus no additional assistance was necessary. He was overruled by the cabinet. This led farmers in southwestern Ontario to believe that there would be substantial financial assistance from the provincial government, only to discover that now the provincial Liberal government is not prepared to give anything like the amount of compensation they need. At least the member for Huron (Mr Riddell) was honest about his unwillingness to help them.

This announcement last week betrays the deceit of his successor once again and unfortunately signals the kinds of difficulties farmers face in dealing with him.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mrs Marland: I would like to congratulate the present and former residents of McClure Crescent in Scarborough for persevering on the side of justice. They have won their battle for compensation from the province for living in houses built on provincially owned land that was contaminated with radioactive soil.

The province will pay between $17,000 and $48,000 to each of the 48 families to compensate for the loss of their deferred mortgages. They deserve this and even more. These families have experienced financial and emotional hardships like no others. They live with the knowledge that their children have been exposed to radioactive soil in their very own backyards.

I was more than pleased to see that the Attorney General (Mr Scott) will not appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision upholding a 1987 Supreme Court of Ontario ruling in favour of the 48 McClure Crescent families. I am also pleased to see the Premier (Mr Peterson) has at least partially lived up to one of his 1985 election promises.

There is still, however, the matter of the soil removal. As we know, the provincial government purchased a number of the homes on McClure Crescent in 1986, but it then turned around and rented these homes to people desperate for a place to live and forced them to sign waivers acknowledging the presence of radioactive soil.

If the Premier were serious about his promise to clean up the McClure Crescent site, he would take steps to remove the tainted soil immediately and to ensure all future housing projects approved by this government are free and clear of any hazardous contamination.

CHILDREN HELPING CHILDREN

Mr Velshi: I want to bring to the attention of the House a most worthwhile charity walkathon organized by the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario called Children Helping Children. For the third consecutive year, this Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario is sponsoring this walkathon for sick kids. The participants will be the children of the various day care centres in Ontario, who will walk around their centre’s playground or neighbourhood to raise funds,

Last year, ADCO raised approximately $70,000, with 15,000 children participating. This year their goal is $100,000 with a participation of about 20,000 children.

Due to the overwhelming support from centres outside Toronto during the past two years, the association has decided that the proceeds from this year’s walkathon will be presented to two more hospitals, Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario in London and Chedoke McMaster Hospitals in Hamilton, in addition to the original beneficiary, the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto.

The walkathon will take place on Thursday 12 October, with a rain date of Friday 13 October. I encourage all members to get out and help the Children Helping Children in their area.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I know all members will want to join me in welcoming a former member of this Legislature and this parliament, Mel Swan.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL-IN-THE-HOME PROGRAM

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to be able to inform the Legislature today that my ministry will be providing a total of $10 million in funding for at least five hospital-in-the-home projects. They are expected to provide more intensive acute care services than are now available in home care programs.

This method of providing care at home enables patients to stay with their families and will be of most benefit to senior citizens and children. It will also enable some of those in hospital to shorten their length of stay and go home earlier. The specific type of acute care provided in each hospital-in-the-home project will differ according to local needs.

I am announcing today a call for proposals with a deadline for receiving them of 29 December. The ministry will review the proposals and the successful applicants will be announced by next April.

The hospital-in-the-home concept is in keeping with this government’s commitment to innovative health strategies. As the Premier (Mr Peterson) has said, “We are building a new system of health care for the 21st century, one that emphasizes innovation, community services and illness prevention.”

To qualify, a hospital-in-the-home program must include guaranteed admission to the program within 24 hours upon referral by a physician, the ongoing monitoring of patients by doctors and nurses, and availability of the same basic medical technology as hospitals.

Ontario has very good hospital-based medical care services with highly sophisticated technology to support critical care patients, and we are committed to maintaining and enhancing it while at the same time making a wider range of services available to people in their communities and as close to home as possible.

RESPONSES

HOSPITAL-IN-THE-HOME PROGRAM

Mr Reville: We have heard again today from the minister the Liberal wish chant about quality care as close to home as possible. Clearly, the facts show that quality care in Ontario may be as close as Detroit or Nova Scotia or may not exist at all, as in the case of the woman who tried to go to 14 hospitals and could not get into any hospital. Obviously, this party welcomes hospital-in-the-home kinds of programs, which would begin to fulfil the promise the government has made over and over again to deliver care to people in their homes.

The need, on the other hand, is so great in the province that I do not believe this $10 million will cause one person to be discharged from hospital earlier, nor do I believe that one blocked hospital bed will be freed up, because in fact the response of government to home care needs has been so inadequate that this program will vanish within a moment.

It is also important, I think, to realize that although $10 million, Mr Speaker, is to you and to me a great deal of money, in terms of the health care budget it is a picayune amount of money and represents one tenth of one per cent of the kind of health care budget that is yearly expended.

Rather than a hospital in a home, we see that there is a very great need for a hospital in a hospital in this province, where we are seeing increasing problems with cardiovascular surgery, cancer treatment, perinatal and neonatal treatment, and clearly in emergency services in hospitals. It is hard to say that we do not want to see hospitals in the home, It is very hard to get really excited about this little project.

Mr B. Rae: I just want to emphasize what the member for Riverdale has said. The minister had the gall to quote her leader who said, “We are building a new system of health care for the 21st century, one that emphasizes innovation, community services and illness prevention.”

What the Premier (Mr Peterson) should have said, if he had a modicum of understanding of the health care system that now confronts us, is that Ontario is building a health care system that emphasizes waiting lists, people dying while on waiting lists, a decline in quality of service in hospital after hospital, phone calls that are not answered and people unable to get at the kind of care they need.

It involves people having to travel not just a few miles for care, but thanks to the way in which cancer care has been allowed to deteriorate under the Liberal government since 1985, it involves people being asked and expected to travel hundreds of miles away from their loved ones in order to receive treatment that five years ago was regarded as basic and fundamental in Ontario.

That is what has been allowed to happen under this government; none of this falderal and nonsense and flim-flammery about innovation, community service and all this prevention. There is not one basic service that has been improved. There is not one aspect of access to service for patients that has been improved under this government, and that is the record of mismanagement and bad planning and incredible neglect that has been allowed to build up under the Liberal government of Ontario.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. Further responses?

Mr Eves: I am rising today to comment also on the statement by the Minister of Health. As the Leader of the Opposition was talking, several government members opposite were saying, “What are you yelling for?” We are yelling on this side of the House, very simply, because we happen to be concerned about people who die when their physician tries to get them into 15 different hospitals in the province and cannot get into a hospital and end up dying.

If the members are not concerned about that, I would suggest they have a serious problem over there, a very serious problem. We have some serious problems in health care in this province and it is about time the minister started doing something about it.

How does the minister have the gall to rise in the House this afternoon and make this flimflam, nicey-goosey statement when people are dying because they cannot get into a hospital because the minister is cutting back beds in the province? She has cut back 700 in Metropolitan Toronto alone; she promised an additional 4,000.

Her leader was out there in two election campaigns promising to improve health care, to provide more beds. The minister is cutting beds out of the system, she will not provide hospitals with the funding they need, and people end up dying because of it. The people who are lucky, who do not end up dying, end up getting to go to Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and all kinds of places, the United States of America, for treatment because the minister’s world-class health care system that she inherited in 1985 she is running into the ground in 1989.

Mr Jackson: I was not going to comment until I heard the minister say in her statement today that this was an announcement of particular benefit to seniors, to allow them to live independently in their homes for longer periods of time. I want to apprise her and her leader that it was only a few weeks ago during hearings of the select committee on education that we wanted to ask this government if it had done any analysis of the impact of property tax increases for senior citizens and their ability to live in their homes longer and afford their taxes.

In fact, we checked with the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin), and there was, no tracking of the Ontario property tax rebate program and its impact on senior citizens. All the minister’s announcements about the health needs for senior citizens will not benefit them one bit if they cannot afford the rents in their apartments and they cannot afford to pay the taxes in the homes they are living in.

Especially in light of all the programs which the minister and her government have offloaded on to property taxpayers, it is our senior citizens on fixed incomes who are hurting the most, and it is they who have their disposable income reduced nearly to nothing. Until the minister understands that when she says, “We’re going to provide hospitals in the home,” when she puts in place programs for senior citizens to allow them to live in their homes, she must remember that they must also be able to afford to live there. It is property taxes, because of her government passing on increases, which are driving them out of their homes.

That is what the minister should be sensitive to, that is what she should be understanding. And that is the information the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) should have had, and he, too, did not have it.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I might now draw the attention of the members to another visitor in the lower east gallery, Patrick Reid, I believe he was the former leader of the Liberal-Labour Party?

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: Yesterday afternoon while we were debating various issues in the House, a human tragedy was unfolding in a hospital in this province. The minister, I know, is acquainted with the facts of this case as much as I am; at least I suspect that she is. I have just gotten off the phone with the administrator of the Huronia District Hospital in Midland, who told me that he and his colleagues on the medical staff spent well over three hours trying to find a bed and emergency care for a woman who had just swallowed a lot of acid and whose life was in danger.

I wonder if the minister can explain to the House, when she makes a statement just this very day saying, and I am quoting from her statement, “Ontario has a very good hospital-based medical care system with highly sophisticated technology to support critical-care patients” -- those are her words -- how it is possible that a patient would arrive at an emergency room in Midland at 1:57 and that she would not be able to be discharged until 7:22 that evening and would not, in fact, find her way to another hospital until far later than that.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I asked those very same questions myself when I heard of this incident and read about it this morning. For the information of the Leader of the Opposition as well as for all members of this House, this is the subject of a coroner’s investigation and a possible inquest, and I have therefore been advised that it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I cannot.

Mr B. Rae: That is an even more major copout than the one that is exemplified by the phantom of the Legislature, her leader. What I would like to ask the minister, if she is not prepared to comment on that particular -- I do not understand why she cannot comment on what has taken place, but I wonder if she can perhaps explain why it would be that the administrator told me that he was quite prepared to talk and he was quite prepared to say how he saw it from his perspective.

He told me very directly that they phoned 14 hospitals and that they also phoned the emergency trauma line which was announced with much fanfare in this House by the minister as the way to solve the problems which I have raised in this House and which other members in other parties have raised in this House over the last couple of years.

Can the minister explain why it would take from two o’clock until nearly 7:30 in the evening before a woman was even on her way to any hospital which could provide her with the care which was necessary to save her life?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I was very distressed when I read the account of this particular incident. I asked the ministry to investigate. I understand that this is the subject of a coroner’s investigation and could result in an inquest, and because of those facts not only is it inappropriate but it would prejudge, I believe, the findings of that inquest if information, which may or may not be accurate and leading to the facts, was discussed in this House. So I have been told that in fact I cannot comment on this situation at this time.

Mr B. Rae: I hope the minister is not suggesting for a moment that Dr Nesdoly, who is a well-regarded emergency physician, and that Mr Key, who is the administrator of the hospital, would be providing information to the House or to the public which is incorrect. The facts are as I have expressed them. I have tried to be as absolutely accurate as I can. At 1:57 a patient arrives, having driven herself to this hospital; she tells them that she has just swallowed this stuff and she understands the urgent nature of this crisis. It takes until 7:22 before this woman is discharged from the hospital.

The doctors knew almost as soon as she had admitted herself that they were not able to perform the surgery which might have saved her life. They then spent over three hours phoning hospital after hospital all over southern Ontario --

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr B. Rae: -- including that emergency line, and got nowhere. Can the minister give us any guarantee that the same situation will not be repeated this afternoon at 1:57?

Hon Mrs Caplan: What I can say to the Leader of the Opposition and to everyone in this House is that I believe everyone in this province cares as much as I do to ensure that people have access to the services that they need when they need them. I believe that the facts must come out in the most appropriate form. I have been told that this particular case is under investigation by the coroner’s office. I believe that all the questions that must be answered will be answered and should be answered so that this kind of situation hopefully can be avoided in the future.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I want to begin to take the minister down to cases in terms of what he is proposing to do with car insurance, and I want him to justify what he is proposing. The language of the proposed act which the minister has put forward limits the right to sue by people who are affected by an accident to death or “permanent serious disfigurement; or permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature.”

It is interesting that that is precisely the language which the insurance industry asked the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board for. The insurance board said it could not go that far, it could not recommend it. It is the language which the minister bought. But what I want to ask the minister is this: Why is he saying that emotional trauma, psychological trauma, the psychological and emotional devastation caused by an accident is no longer worthy of compensation by right to sue in Ontario? Why is he saying that?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman knows that is not what is being said. He knows that in situations where there are serious injuries that are accompanied by that type of trauma, they in fact will be compensated. But even more than that, he is aware that what we have put in place is a system that can reply quickly and respond quickly to the needs of those psychological difficulties created by trauma.

In fact, what we have done is provided a release of pressure from those people, because we have increased the wage replacement that is available within a week of the accident. We have put in place supplementary medical and rehabilitation services immediately upon the accident having occurred. We have put in place another $500,000 in long-term care to assist those people as they deal with those traumas.

So what the gentleman has failed to indicate to the people is that we have a much more comprehensive way of assisting those people in the early days; in fact, for those people who have suffered a trauma that causes them problems as a result of an accident, they will be sustained in their ability to come back into the community, go back into the workplace, at a much better level and will be able to undertake litigation at a time which, under our current system, they are prevented from doing because they get no release at all.

Mr B. Rae: Let me again try to be as specific as I can. Let me give the minister an example. A mother and her young daughter are crossing the street. The young daughter is killed. The mother sees this. She is working; maybe she is making $20,000, $25,000 a year. The minister knows perfectly well that under the

definitions in his legislation, that woman is not able to sue the driver who killed her daughter. She is not able to sue because she does not have a “permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing injury which is physical in nature.” Those are the minister’s words. They are not my words; they are his words.

What this woman has is an emotional trauma. Let’s say that emotional trauma stops her from working for two or three years. What I am saying to the minister is: Can he deny that that woman is prevented, by the wording in this act, from suing a careless driver who killed her daughter, and she is prevented from receiving payment from that driver for the pain and suffering --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Elston: What the honourable gentleman has prevented himself from acknowledging is that under the circumstances, there is a death benefit payable. Right?

Mr D. S. Cooke: That is not what he is asking.

Hon Mr Elston: The fact of the matter is that the estate can sue. It is not very much consolation to have a death compensated by money; I appreciate that, but that is in fact what can occur. The estate of the child is able to sue the driver. There are other things that take effect when a litigation is instituted on behalf of the estate of the deceased. Through that process there will be some compensation -- not nearly enough; I know it is not nearly enough when somebody loses a child. But the litigation that comes by the result of the death will be able to be prosecuted.

The other thing that occurs is that where there is a requirement that she is off work, she will receive no-fault, she will receive no-fault benefits when she is working, she will receive the rehab, she will receive the medical, she will receive long-term care. She will receive all of those things to allow her to be supported as she goes through those difficult times.

The system, like every other one, of course, is not perfect. I am sure the member will be able to contrive some scheme of facts that he might believe will preclude a recovery.

But let’s look at what we have now. We have a tort system now where almost one third of the seriously injured people in this province are unable to recover anything at all. I would say that this is a substantial improvement over that; in fact, in some of the grey areas the member will obviously try to point out, we will be able to respond much more effectively.

Mr B. Rae: If I can refer again to my example, I say to the minister that what the woman would receive under a system in which she could sue for her own damages and what she will get under the system of income replacement, benefits up to a maximum of $450 which the minister has set out -- that difference runs into the tens of thousands of dollars.

If the minister wants to go over the facts with me or go over any other hypothetical case which I am going to be raising with him over the next several weeks, I can go over with him clearly. What I am telling him is that what he is doing is taking money out of the pockets of innocent victims and putting it into the pockets of the insurance companies. That is precisely what he is doing. That is exactly what he is doing. He has a law here which is restricting the right to sue, which is taking rights away from citizens and from innocent victims and putting it into the pockets of the insurance companies, and that is the only way in which he says he is going to be saving people money.

The Speaker: What is the question?

Mr B. Rae: The only reason he is saving people money is because he is shafting people who are getting hit and who are getting hurt in Ontario today. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon Mr Elston: No. In fact, I can confirm that the honourable gentleman from the second party is wrong, and I do not mind confirming that he is in error. He is right when he contends that there will be areas of discussion about how the application of the threshold will take place. That is why we have in the serious situations allowed the continuation of a very impartial system, the tort system, to make judgements on those injuries and how far they are compensated.

I do not have a problem in having areas deliberated upon by the judicial system of this province. The member does not, either. None of us do. But let’s look at what this system does accomplish. This system does intervene within a week to provide income replacement for those people who are off work. It does intervene right away, within 10 to 30 days, to provide the supplementary medical and rehab services. It does intervene and give up to $500,000 for long-term care. It does provide the basis for people to come back into the workplace, back into their own homes. It provides child care expenses, for the first time.

It provides an unemployed person with a weekly income supplement. It provides a homemaker who is unpaid with weekly income repayments.

So I can tell the honourable gentleman that this is a far superior social system than we have now, and I am pleased to provide this as a redistribution of the benefits that we are making available for insurance.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Health as well. The Minister of Health has already had relayed to her the facts surrounding the unfortunate case that occurred in the death at the Midland hospital. The minister will recognize that there were some 14 hospitals that were contacted and no services were available in those hospitals. Some of the major communities in this province, including Toronto, London, Barrie, Hamilton, all rejected this particular patient because of the unavailability of service.

Now the minister is indicating to the leader of the New Democrats that she cannot respond to questions with respect to this matter, based on the argument that there could be an inquest. I would like to ask the minister in regard to this which coroner has in fact ordered an inquest? When was that done? Could the minister share with this House the terms of reference of that suggested inquest?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As I have said to the leader of the third party, and as I say to him now, when I became aware of this particular case I asked the ministry to gather the information and the facts. I have been informed that this is the subject of an investigation by the coroner’s office and that an inquest may be called. I will undertake, to the leader of the third party, that as we gather the information and the facts are available, if I am advised that I can report to the House I will be pleased to do that.

I share with him and all members the concerns that people have access to the services that they need when they need them. I want to see that the questions are answered in the appropriate forum, and I undertake to respond, if I can, in this forum.

Mr Brandt: I would suggest that the minister is quite able to respond. There is no inquest. There is a study, an investigation with respect to the possibility of an inquest being called. The circumstances at this point in time, now that the minister is getting advice from the Attorney General (Mr Scott), are such that she can respond to questions in regard to this case.

I want to know, since the minister is now free to answer questions -- the coroner has not ordered an inquest -- how is it that this particular patient would be allowed to be in a circumstance where her life was threatened for over three hours while calls were being made to various hospitals and there was no response under the minister’s system, which is supposedly a system that is world-class and is quickly becoming third- and fourth-class in terms of health care?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am very concerned about having all of those questions answered. I will say to the leader of the third party that the ministry is investigating and, as appropriate, I will make that information available.

Mr Brandt: I am not sure from what the minister says who is investigating what in this case, Now she is saying the ministry is investigating. I want to get, if I could, to a question, which I believe she is free to answer in connection with this particular case.

There were 14 hospitals that were contacted in regard to the availability of the type of emergency response that would be needed to perform the operation on this unfortunate lady. Since in this House we have on numerous occasions brought to her attention the catastrophic situation that is being set up with many hospitals across the province in regard to cutbacks in services, could the minister indicate which of the 14 hospitals have suffered bed reductions, reductions in their required operating moneys, and what is the status of those particular 14 hospitals in total economic and financial terms? Could she indicate that?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that in fact no budget of any hospital in this province has been reduced. There have only been increases.

Mr Brandt: I asked about beds. Answer the question.

Hon Mrs Caplan: What we have been acknowledging is that in fact beds are no longer the benchmark of services across the board and that many services do not require inpatient care. Emergency and trauma and highly specialized services do, but there are many, many services which can now be provided in alternative ways.

I would say to the member, for example, that outpatient services, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto since 1982-83 to present, have increased by some 82 per cent, So when we look at this particular situation, it is important for us to get the facts, to understand the situation. I will undertake to do that, but no hospital budget in this province has been decreased. There have only been increases.

Mr Brandt: And beds cut. Why don’t you mention beds? The beds have been cut.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: On the same subject to the Minister of Health: The minister is not answering the question that has been asked of her by either the leader of our party or the leader of the official opposition.

The fact that an investigation is going on by the coroner does not mean that the minister can abdicate her responsibility as Minister of Health for providing health care to the people of the province of Ontario. I would suggest to her that we have a very serious situation here. When a physician and a hospital try from 2 pm to 7:22 pm to find through her integrated trauma number that is supposed to resolve all these difficulties and individually to 14 different hospitals in four major centres in the province and cannot find one single hospital that can admit this woman because of either no beds or no qualified surgeon to do this appropriate procedure --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: -- or both, I would suggest to the minister that her health care system is in serious disarray and we are entitled to receive an explanation. What is the explanation?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I will say to the critic from the third party that I am very concerned about ensuring that the details of this specific case are addressed. I have undertaken to gather all of the facts and to ensure that they are made available to the coroner’s office, which is investigating, and to members of this House.

I would say to the member that it is very important that we have all of the information and the facts in the appropriate forum so that we can ensure that we do everything we can within the province to see to it that people have access to the services they need and when they need them.

Mr Eves: If we could save 10 lives for every time the minister stood in this House and said, “I am always concerned when I hear about cases like this,” she would have literally saved thousands of lives just standing up and making that quote.

If the minister is so concerned, then why does she not get off her seat and solve some of the problems in the health care system so those people do not die, so she will not have to come in here day after day and say she is always so concerned? I think that would be the answer to that problem.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: We have identified a number of areas of specialty care. Trauma and emergency are but one. We are moving both to enhance and to strengthen the services that are available within the province. I would say that when we look at individual cases, it is very important that we have all of the facts but that we not damn the whole system.

We know there are very dedicated physicians and nurses and allied health professionals, hospital trustees working together to provide service to the people in this province, and I will undertake to gather the information and make it available to the coroner and to members of this House so that we can look at the structural changes which may be necessary to see that this does not occur in the future.

Mr Eves: Nobody is questioning the dedication of physicians or hospitals in this province. What we are questioning is the dedication of the Minister of Health and the government in this instance.

Dr Nesdoly, who is a very well respected physician in Midland and has done some volunteer work very recently as a matter of fact in Africa, talked to me this afternoon on the phone and said, “I would expect this in a Third World country but I would not expect this to happen in Ontario in 1989.” He also indicated, and this is a quote from Dr Nesdoly, that he is “tired of seeing Elinor’s smiling face on TV every day telling the people of Ontario not to worry, everything is all right, when I am the one who has to talk to the family and explain to them that this woman died because of Elinor’s system that could not get this woman into 15 different hospitals in the province of Ontario.”

The Speaker: Did you have a question?

Mr Eves: The Ontario Medical Association, as I am sure the minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Do you have a question? Please place it briefly.

Mr Eves: I wish you would time the responses as well as you time the questions.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: I withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Eves: My question to the minister is the same one that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) asked earlier in these proceedings. That is, very simply, can the minister assure this House that this will not happen again in the province of Ontario under any circumstances?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I can assure the critic from the third party and all the members of this House that we are working with all of our partners in health care to ensure, as best we can, that people have access to the services they need, effective quality services and as close to home as possible. I can say to him that we have undertaken to do that co-operatively with the professionals and with the hospitals who deliver the programs in this province.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can explain this case. I have just been advised that John Jagger, who was a hockey coach in Sault Ste Marie, hit his head on the ice at Memorial Gardens at around 6:30 pm on 1 October. Upon his arrival at the General Hospital in the Sault, the decision was made immediately to transfer him to the unit at Victoria Hospital in London which is the hospital with which the General Hospital has had a relationship for many years.

I understand, according to the Sault Star of today, Wednesday 11 October, the hospital in the Sault was advised by the Victoria Hospital that he could not be moved and that they would not be able to send a team up to the Sault because of a shortage of intensive care staff. I am also told that there was a considerable delay in his transfer then to St Michael’s Hospital and he died on the morning of 2 October.

I wonder if the minister can explain. The incident involving the lady in Midland does not appear to be an isolated incident. Can the minister explain why it would be that again we would have doctors in the middle of the night chasing around the province trying to find the appropriate place for patients in this kind of difficulty?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am not familiar with the details of the specific case. If the Leader of the Opposition would send me over the

article to which he refers, I would be happy to ask the ministry to investigate.

I am always concerned when there are any kinds of problems or identified situations such as the one he has articulated. There are highly specialized services provided in centres across the province and I can tell the member that I know they are working together, probably for the first time, co-operatively with each other and with the ministry to try and resolve the kinds of issues, the human resourcing challenges as well as changing demographics that we face right across this province.

I would be pleased to look specifically into the situation the member has raised.

Mr B. Rae: According to Dr Frank Rutledge -- again, this is quoting directly from today’s Sault Star -- who is associate co-ordinator of the critical care trauma centre at Victoria Hospital, he said, “The lack of staff and extreme demand are the reasons why the trauma team couldn’t respond to Sault Ste Marie. ‘When the call came on October 1, the trauma unit was short of staff and could not make the run,’ he said. ‘The hospital wouldn’t jeopardize the safety of its own trauma unit patients by sending members of its reduced staff to the Sault.’”

I have no way of knowing, and neither does the minister, whether this period of time, whether the passage of a few hours, was the difference between life and death or not. What we do know is that up until this time, there was an established relationship between the Sault hospital and the hospital in London. It was there and the system broke down.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: What is also clear is that it is going to be breaking down in future because of the shortage of staff and because of the shortage of funding, and that is the reality in the Ontario health care system today.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I think it is important to note that trauma services are provided in a number of different centres and that referral patterns can vary according to need. These are highly specialized services.

I would be pleased to investigate the specific case he brings forward, but I point out to him that Sudbury also provides trauma services and that is closer in fact to the Sault. I would have to find out why in fact the referral was not made, but I would not question medical judgement as to how those determinations are made.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Brandt: To the Minister of Health: The minister will be aware that this circumstance that occurred in Midland is not in fact a unique situation in Ontario. Charles Coleman, whom she will recall from Mississauga, died under similar circumstances, the problem of the availability of beds. We had Mrs Gaccioli of Sarnia who was released, because of being on a long waiting list for heart surgery, from London Victoria Hospital, sent back to her home community in Sarnia and died later that day. Now we have this other case that has come to our attention as a result of the events that took place yesterday.

Still another death has occurred, in addition to many more that are occurring across the province.

How can the minister sit in her place and respond by saying that there have been no cuts in budgets? We recognize that she did not cut budgets in hospitals. What she has cut is beds, and the benchmark for service in this province relative to health care is, not totally but in great part, the availability of beds. Now we have 14 hospitals that were contacted for one available bed and one service for an emergency case. How is it possible in the Ontario of 1989 that this woman could not find any place to have the surgery performed?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party in his

preamble that in fact the situations of individual cases are very different. That is why we must look at what the facts are as we determine what action can be taken, or should be taken or is appropriate to be taken, to ensure that people have access to the services they need when they need them.

A waiting time for elective surgery is not new in this province, and I would say to the member that availability of certain procedures in Ontario is better than in other parts of Canada. In fact, we have one of the highest rates of institutionalization in this province and our use of inpatient services is very high when you compare it with the opportunities, for example, that the Independent Health Facilities Act offers, to provide services in alternative locations of equally high quality. That is why we are looking at how our system is structured, to make sure that we can respond to these changing times when new technologies are allowing services to be provided in alternative ways.

Mr Eves: The minister will be aware of an OMA survey that was done and released on 29 June of this past year. More than 600 physicians in the province were surveyed and over half the physicians found that they were experiencing more difficulty, not less, in admitting patients to hospitals compared to just one year ago. The specific areas that are singled out here are Metropolitan Toronto and central Ontario, and their rates are that 55 per cent and 56 per cent of physicians are finding this.

A very independent Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto report, which l am sure the minister will also be aware of, clearly shows that more bed closings have taken place as hospitals attempt to meet government funding limitations. The reality of the matter is that, because of these limitations that the minister is placing on hospitals, people such as this Midland woman cannot get admitted to hospitals and in some unfortunate cases, like hers, they die because there are not sufficient beds or services to provide the care that is required.

Yesterday we talked about cancer clinics --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Eves: There is another case. Jim Hunter who had a brain tumour --

The Speaker: Order. This, I am afraid I will have to say, is too lengthy. Do you have a one-sentence question?

Mr Eves: I have a one-sentence question.

The Speaker: Make it.

Mr Eves: Why would Mr Hunter have to wait for seven weeks to get radiation treatment at Princess Margaret for a brain tumour when the minister told us yesterday --

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Eves: -- they can get treatment as soon as they need it as close to home as possible.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think the information that the critic for the third party raises allows me to once again state that we rely on physicians in this province to ensure that people receive the care they need on a priority basis. We know that they are working very hard with the ministry and the hospitals to ensure that we have a system in place that people receive priority on the basis of needs.

We established at Princess Margaret a patient referral centre because we acknowledged that 50 per cent of the people coming to Princess Margaret come from outside of the Metro Toronto area and the hope of the referral centre is that they can be referred for service as close to home as possible.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Last week the federal Minister of Transport announced drastic cuts to Via Rail service. These will seriously affect intercity rail transportation across Ontario and Canada. The people of Peterborough were devastated to learn that the Havelock-Peterborough-Toronto route will be completely eliminated in three short months’ time.

Can the minister tell the House what discussions he has had with Mr Bouchard on the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock route?

Hon Mr Wrye: I regret to tell the honourable member that I have not had a chance to talk to Mr Bouchard about that specific route, any more than I have had an opportunity to discuss any route in Ontario with my federal colleague. The very first I read about the minister’s view, and it is not one that I endorse, that the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock run has gone from being an intercity run to a commuter run was when I read that in the minister’s statement last Wednesday afternoon.

I must say that when I was in Calgary in September of this year, along with my other provincial colleagues I pressed (

a) for a moratorium and (

b) for a round of what I would call true consultation, which includes the area that the honourable member is so rightly concerned about and, regrettably, Mr Bouchard did not indicate any interest in consulting with the province.

We find it very difficult on this side in the government to see, after rejecting consultation, the federal minister then turning around and arbitrarily and unilaterally announcing that certain runs that have been intercity runs are now, in his view, commuter runs. It would have been nice if he had shared that view with us over the last six months or so.

Mr Adams: I am grateful for that response. This is a matter which is of enormous concern for both the county council and the city council in Peterborough, and I would ask the minister if he is willing to meet with community leaders on this important matter.

Mr Wildman: What a tough question.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wrye: My friend the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) made the comment, “What a tough question.” I guess it is tough because the federal Minister of Transport has been requested to hold meetings with provinces, with municipalities and with community groups for over six months and has answered no to that question.

However, over on this side, we will do that kind of consultation. I can inform the honourable member that I am currently finalizing arrangements for meetings with the affected parties, which will include the mayor of Peterborough and the reeve of the county. I expect that meeting will take place on Thursday of next week and we have every expectation --

The Speaker: Thank you.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Health. Last February I asked the minister if she would conduct a base-line health study of the population surrounding the Darlington nuclear generating station. The minister undertook to look into the issue. Such a request has now been made by the Newcastle town council, the Whitby town council, the Scugog township council, Oshawa city council, Durham regional council and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Can the minister explain why no base-line health study has been conducted of the population surrounding the Darlington station?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I am not familiar with the specifics of the reason a study has or has not been conducted. I would be happy to look into it.

Mrs Grier: That is precisely the answer the minister gave me on 27 February this year when I asked the question for the first time. In June I asked the former Minister of Energy, the member for Fort York (Mr Wong), and he said he would look into it. The fact remains that nothing has happened.

A base-line health study is a study that will provide data on the state of the health of the population before a nuclear generating station is opened. That means that if there are concerns in later years, there is a database with which the population can be compared. It is critical that such a study be done before the plant opens. There is now a brief interval of opportunity because the plant has not been licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Can the minister give me any commitment that she will move with some urgency on this issue and respond to the concerns of local residents, town councils and this party by making sure that some analysis of that population is done now before Darlington starts operating?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Let me share with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that in fact a health status survey is being conducted in this province under the auspices of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. We have already begun to initiate the planning for that health status survey. I believe it will provide the kind of information so that in fact we will be able to meet the needs of our future populations in this province and do the kind of measurement of health status which will prove invaluable in the gathering of information.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. I am sending over two documents. Yesterday the minister said that the standing committee on government agencies had more than enough information. One of the two items I have sent over is a signed statement by the former commission secretary, Lynn Dowling, and the other is a letter from the former commission director of compliance, Jim Stratton. The Lynn Dowling statement was given by Mr Stratton’s legal counsel to the authors of the interministerial report, Mr Amin and Mr Gordon, prior to their writing their report.

Last week I asked Mr Amin and Mr Gordon about Lynn Dowling and they said, “We were not aware of Lynn Dowling.” My question to the minister is, does he now agree that these former employees should be heard by the committee since the government staff has failed to acknowledge that they even exist?

Hon Mr Wong: I thank the honourable member for providing me with this information. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to digest it. What l do believe is that what the standing committee should be doing is making sure that it has sufficient information in order to determine what the situation was in the past and, as I indicated yesterday, I believe that another part of the mandate of the committee is to determine and make sure that the commission is operating on a strong and independent basis for the future.

I say to the honourable member that because she is a member of that standing committee, and it is the responsibility of that committee, I am sure that if she voiced her specific opinion to the chairperson of that committee, her opinion would be heard.

Mrs Marland: I have tried to use my position as a member of that committee, and the Liberal members vote down my motions. The minister cannot stand in this House today and say that it is up to the committee to get sufficient information. In fact, he said yesterday they had sufficient information.

The Speaker: The supplementary?

Mrs Marland: This morning I spoke to the solicitor who gave Lynn Dowling’s statement to Mr Amin and Mr Gordon. The minister’s judgement in this matter is critical to the future of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. He does not seem to understand what is at stake here. My question is, what is it that he is afraid of? Does he not want these allegations dealt with once and for all and to clean up the controversy by having the individuals named in those documents come to give their testimony to the committee?

Hon Mr Scott: Would you like to run the committee all by yourself, all alone? That would probably suit you.

The Speaker: I do not believe that question was addressed to the Attorney General. I think it was to the Minister of Citizenship.

Hon Mr Wong: In response to the honourable member, let me suggest again, I do not know what the substance is of the information that she has transferred over to me, but I believe it would be important for the committee members to have the information so they could make that judgement. I will undertake, if the honourable member has not already done so, to make sure that this information is handed over to the chairperson of that committee.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In his answer to the member for Peterborough (Mr Adams), he made reference to meetings with community leaders on the Via Rail cutbacks. I assume that the mayor of Brantford and other local representatives will also be invited to attend such a meeting, as our community has lost 50 per cent of its trains, including the very popular early morning run which carries many local residents to work in Toronto and other communities.

Last week the federal standing committee on transport of the House of Commons, against the wishes of the Prime Minister and the minister, voted to hold public hearings on this very important matter of Via cuts. I would like to ask today whether the minister is prepared to attend before that federal committee and represent the interests of communities like Brantford and the interests of Ontario to that committee.

Hon Mr Wrye: It will not come as a surprise to the honourable member to know that in the past and in the present case it would be the view of the government of Ontario to involve itself really on a government-to-government basis, that is, as one minister to another.

But that being said, one of the reasons we are having the meeting with the affected mayors next week, and the member’s mayor will of course be one of those who will be invited, is to develop a co-ordinated attack or response for the communities across Ontario, to these very severe cutbacks, to share with communities such as the member’s and our colleague the member for Peterborough the information we have gathered about the impact of those cuts and to see how, working together, we can get the federal government to alleviate the impact of those cutbacks.

We expect that the meeting will only be the first of a series of discussions, and I can assure the honourable member that my staff will be monitoring very carefully the work of the committee as it travels, we expect, throughout Ontario looking at the impact of these very serious cutbacks.

Mr Neumann: That is welcome news. Besides the impact on communities, the cuts have a national implication, and I wonder whether the minister is prepared to contact Mr Bouchard and ask him to convene a meeting of all ministers of transportation to address this very important issue of national unity on transportation.

Hon Mr Wrye: In a letter that Mr Bouchard sent me, which accompanied the announcement, there was the suggestion of meetings in the future. I am preparing a reply which indicates very clearly that we are prepared to meet with the minister and indeed involve ourselves in a federal-provincial undertaking if there is some progress we can make together.

As the member may know, there has been some particular suggestion emanating from western Canada, from the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta, about having a meeting of provincial ministers. We indicated in a round of phone calls last week to our provincial counterparts that Ontario was prepared to play a role in any provincial initiative that would be taken.

We attempted to put a very firm position, one which I am sure has the support of all parties in this Legislature, to the minister when we had the meeting in Calgary. We are prepared to continue to reiterate the view that rail transportation in Ontario and across the country is an integral part of a balanced transportation that will take us into the 1990s.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, whom I want to congratulate on his recent appointment, but it is time to put him to work in this House.

Those who so generously supported the recent Thanksgiving food bank drives, in Ontario and Toronto in particular, will be surprised to learn that their provincial government has given notice that it will be withdrawing support for the food banks in the near future. Several hundred thousand dollars will be disappearing with the end of the emergency support, shelter and assistance program which the past minister announced on 13 July.

Will the present minister please tell us whether he really intends to implement this perverse decision without any evidence whatsoever that the number of those patronizing food banks is or will be declining?

Hon Mr Beer: I look forward to working with the critics from the two opposition parties and other members as we try to wrestle through a number of very serious issues, of which this is one, which affect people who are on social assistance.

I want to make clear at the beginning in terms of the amount of money going into this program, which by the end of March would be something in the order of $1.4 million, that many more dollars are going to be directed into providing help to these people.

I think as the honourable member knows we do not directly fund the food banks. What we have tried to do with the changes that were brought in by my predecessor in the spring is to try to get at the roots of many of the problems which cause people to have to use the food banks. That is not going to happen overnight, and I do not think my predecessor or I would say that those changes, which have started this month, will by themselves alone produce that impact.

But when you do look at the amount of money we put into the social assistance reform plan -- some $415 million -- we are convinced that will begin to provide more cash in the hands of people, whether in terms of helping them with their basic shelter or with their basic food and clothing needs, and that will begin to have an impact on the numbers who have to make use of food banks.

I can assure the honourable member that we will be continuing to work with those groups around the shelters and around those who have been using this program to ensure their needs are met.

Mr Allen: I heard no hard evidence of declining need or declining patronage, only speculation about possible transfers and the shiftings of dollars within the programs in other directions. Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto tells us its patronage has gone up 35 per cent in the last year and it is still climbing. Only four per cent of the users of its services are able to work, so the relaxed employment rules will not help them. An average $57 per month in shelter allowances in the way of increases is not going to top up the rent that much to make much difference for those people.

A mere inflation-level increase for those who are among the working poor in terms of minimum wages is not going to keep them from the doors of food banks. I suspect the minister is calculating on a lot of very speculative effects which are not in place at this point in time. I wonder whether it would not be wise for the minister to suspend the decision until he knows fully and clearly that the patronage of food banks is on the way down. The statistics will show it, and then there will be some justification in moving this program dollar around.

Hon Mr Beer: I want to reiterate that in making the decision to end this program, we are not ending the kind of support it was providing. What we are trying to do is make more stable what has been an emergency, year-to-year approach. We are going to be looking very carefully at this as we move through to the end of March. It is our belief at this time that the programs we are putting in place will more than meet that particular need.

I think it is interesting to point out to honourable members that over the past three years there have been some seven major increases in benefits. When we work out the inflationary factor, we see that this has brought about a real increase in terms of benefits of some 10.7 per cent. When we then factor in the $415-million change that came through with the social assistance reforms, it is some 11.5 per cent.

I recognize that when we get into talking about dollars and percentages, we still have to deal with the specific human dilemma that people face. But I think it is very clear that the commitment of this government has been to try to increase the benefits and to get to those who are in need so we can make a much more effective attack on the reasons why people need food banks.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the minister of all education. It relates to the apprenticeship program and it concerns the number of women being trained in nontraditional occupations. The September 1989 issue of Skills Letter states that his ministry will increase the number of women being trained in nontraditional skilled occupations by 3,000 by the year 1992.

I want to tell the minister that women entering nontraditional occupations through his ministry’s apprenticeship program actually decreased in relative terms during the past year. How can he expect to increase the number of women in nontraditional occupations by 1,000 per year when his ministry had trouble increasing the number last year by a mere 103?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my colleague from London North for her question and for her interest. I do not know where I have heard that introductory phrase before, but I simply want to say to my friend that the government does recognize that we have a very significant challenge that we are very anxious to address.

Apprenticeship, like skills training generally, will be very important for this community and this economy as we face the 1990s. We are determined to overcome a number of the obstacles and barriers that have been in the community and in the society that have prevented women from proceeding along this course of educational endeavour.

While we recognize that we have not yet met all of the challenge, we are determined, as I said earlier and, as my colleague the Premier has indicated on previous occasions, very anxious in the coming years to improve the record. We have announced a number of goals which, with the help and support of this Legislature, we believe we can meet.

Mrs Cunningham: The ministry’s newly launched community-based campaign to attract women in nontraditional skilled occupations is another fine example of his government’s ready, fire, aim. It just does not have any pizzazz. It is the same old thing.

The minister has set a lofty goal of some 5,000 in nontraditional apprenticeship programs -- only 103 last year; 1,000 next year? With declining percentages of female program participants and no mechanisms in place to effect change, how can his ministry justify calling its programs “effective springboards of opportunity”?

Hon Mr Conway: I am happy to leave pizzazz to my friend the member for London North. I will be more concerned with results, and I recognize that there is a significant challenge.

As minister, as she says, of all education, l am determined to ensure that throughout elementary and secondary education -- for example, through our teaching and our curriculum and through our learning materials and our examples -- we will provide role models for young girls and for women to understand the opportunities that are out there.

There is a great deal to be done, I appreciate, as my honourable friend does, but we have set goals. I am determined, with the support of this Legislature and quite frankly with the support of parents, labour, business, and others in the community, to change some of the past practice to improve the performance and reach those objectives.

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

Mr Owen: I too have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to point out to the minister that his deputy minister several weeks ago was addressing a conference in eastern Ontario, and when he was doing that, he spelled out that the requirement of the ministry with regard to junior and senior kindergarten in a five-year time frame was going to lead to “an improvement in language and social skills, an improvement in discipline and an improvement in health practices of disadvantaged children.”

Now, all of us are for all of these things, but I would point out to the minister that we now have kindergarten and we also have day care in many of these communities. I would like to know how the ministry thinks these changes of combining junior and senior kindergarten are going to make such a difference over what we presently have, and why.

Hon Mr Conway: I think it is important for me to tell my honourable friend and the House that in the speech from the throne read by His Honour earlier this year, the government of Ontario, led by my friend our leader, the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson), made very clear that reforming the elementary and secondary educational curriculum was going to be a first-order priority and, as my friend will know, one of the very key elements of that educational reform is that we are going to be putting more emphasis on those early years.

Why? He will know that many groups, including the early primary education project that reported three or four years ago, one of the most consultative and constructive groups ever to advise on education, indicated that a greater investment in those early childhood years was enormously important. With these initiatives, we are going to improve access to junior and senior kindergarten because we know that improving the investment, improving the access there will pay very significant social, educational and economic dividends down the stream, later on.

Mr Owen: In the same address, Mr Shapiro indicated that there would be more time spent on reading, writing and arithmetic and less time on subjects such as gym or history, and that science was going to be offered as early as grades 1 or 2. He indicated in his speech that these changes will bring about a will to learn so that opportunities to learn will be embraced by students rather than tolerated or ignored as we sometimes see. I would like to know how it is perceived these particular changes will lead to this change in outlook and approach to education by the children of this age.

Hon Mr Conway: My friend will know, and certainly the research is very strong on this point, that we know young children at ages four and five can learn a great deal in an educational environment and that is why we are doing what we are doing with the emphasis particularly on the early childhood years.

Yes, there are, as my friend from Halton or London or others would want me to observe, many other very important aspects of the educational reforms undertaken by this government in this most recent speech from the throne, but as my friend the member for Simcoe will know, we have indicated as well that we are going to be substantially reducing class sizes at grades 1 and 2 because we want to provide the best possible learning environment in those early years because of the good results we know it will provide in Simcoe and everywhere across Ontario.

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. Earlier this year, the Law Society of Upper Canada had a situation where professional misconduct complaints were recommended against a solicitor who has now been appointed by the government as chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission. The Attorney General has special authority under

section 13 of the Law Society Act to inquire into this, to order the production of any documents and to basically conduct a full-scale inquiry as to the situation surrounding the recommendation of professional misconduct complaints and why those complaints were not proceeded with. Has he used his authority to make such an investigation? If so, what has he found? If he has not used his authority to make such an investigation, why has he not when this is such a --

The Speaker: That is three questions.

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member, being a member of the law society and having his own authority to act, properly knows, the discipline of members of the profession is in the hands of the discipline committee under its chairman and the chairman of the discipline committee made a decision in this particular case.

Mr Hampton: You have special authority and the Attorney General is in charge of public interest.

Hon Mr Scott: Perhaps he can just key down for a minute while I try to answer the question. The honourable member will be glad to know that one of the lay benchers of the law society appointed by the government, June Callwood, supported by other benchers, has taken steps with the law society to make the kinds of inquiries the honourable member would make himself. I am pleased she has done so and we will await events.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all members that I have called for petitions and the members with petitions would like to be heard.

Mr Breaugh: I have a petition and I will just read it in part. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

It is signed by some 86 teachers who live in and around the riding of Oshawa.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr MacDonald: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition deals with the French Language Services Act and requests that the government refrain from further implementation.

It is signed by 41 people and I have affixed my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Furlong: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has refused to allow an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a satisfactory dispute resolution process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

I have affixed my name to this petition as required by the rules.

The Speaker: Petitions? Committee reports? If no one has a report, I have a report.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The Speaker: Yesterday there was an error in the report received and adopted by the House from the standing committee on administration of justice with respect to Bill 3,

An Act to amend certain statutes of Ontario consequent upon amendments to the Courts of Justice Act, 1984. The committee report indicated that the bill was being reported without amendment,

whereas in fact the committee had ordered the bill to be reported as amended by the committee. I must therefore ask the House whether the bill shall be received and adopted by the House as amended by the standing committee on administration of justice.

Agreed to.

The Speaker: Therefore, yesterday, the House agreed to refer the bill to committee of the whole House, so shall the bill continue to go to committee of the whole House?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Mancini moved first reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO BAPTIST SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1989

Mr Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr29,

An Act to amend the Toronto Baptist Seminary Act, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

GRAND VALLEY RAILWAY CO INC ACT, 1989

Mr McClelland moved first reading of Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting Grand Valley Railway Co Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr Ward moved resolution 20:

That the membership on the select and standing committees be as follows:

Select committee on education: Messrs Campbell, D. S. Cooke, Furlong, Jackson, R. F. Johnston, Keyes, Mahoney, Miclash, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Poole and Mr Villeneuve;

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs Chiarelli, Hampton, Kanter, Kormos, McClelland, McGuinty, Miss Nicholas, Messrs Polsinelli, Runciman, D. W. Smith and Sterling;

Standing committee on estimates: Messrs Charlton, Cleary, D. R. Cooke, Eves, Matrundola, McCague, Miclash, Neumann, Philip, Miss Roberts and Mr Villeneuve;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Carrothers, Mrs Cunningham, Messrs Daigeler, Ferraro, Haggerty, Ms Hošek, Messrs Mackenzie, Mahoney, Morin-Strom, Reycraft and Runciman;

Standing committee on general government: Ms Bryden, Messrs Charlton, Cureatz, Furlong, Mrs LeBourdais, Messrs McLean, J. B. Nixon, Ms Oddie Munro, Messrs Pelissero, Sola and Velshi;

Standing committee on government agencies: Messrs Breaugh, Farnan, Fulton, Kozyra, Lupusella, Mrs Marland, Messrs McLean, J. B. Nixon, Owen, Pope and South;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs Breaugh, Brown, Campbell, Epp, Eakins, Farnan, Faubert, J. M. Johnson, Kerrio, Sterling and Mrs Sullivan;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Bossy, Ms Bryden, Messrs Carrothers, D. R. Cooke, Cousens, Henderson, MacDonald, Philip, Pollock, Mrs E. J. Smith and Mr Velshi;

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs Adams, Ballinger, Charlton, Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Leone, Miss Martel, Mr Philip, Ms Poole and Mr Villeneuve;

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Messrs Callahan, Bossy, Jackson, Kanter, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Morin-Strom, Pollock, M. C. Ray, Ruprecht and Tatham;

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs Dietsch, Fleet, Laughren, Lipsett, Mrs Marland, Messrs McGuigan, Miller, Pouliot, Riddell, Wildman and Wiseman;

Standing committee on social development: Mr Allen, Mrs Cunningham, Mr Elliot, Mrs Fawcett, Messrs Grandmaître, Henderson, Jackson, R. F. Johnston, Keyes, Mrs O’Neill and Mrs Stoner.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Phillips moved second reading of Bill 58,

An Act respecting the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes.

Hon Mr Phillips: As members know, the purpose of the bill is to provide for settlement of the dispute that we see between the Toronto Transit Commission and its employees, as represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 235, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2.

The legislation refers all matters for a new collective agreement between the parties except for one to binding arbitration. An arbitrator will be appointed by an order in council soon after the bill is approved.

The bill provides for a wage increase of five per cent retroactive to the expiry dates of the respective collective agreements. However, this award may be increased by the arbitrator.

The one matter that will not be subject to arbitration is the issue of staffing, including the part-time issue. This issue will be investigated by an independent fact-finder appointed by the government. The fact-finder will inquire into this matter, gather evidence, hear submissions and make a report, together with any recommendations, to the minister. That report will also be available to the parties.

The fact-finder will decide on the procedures that will be followed in the conduct of the inquiry. He or she will, with the parties involved, have 30 days after the appointment to set out the issues involved in this dispute. If they cannot define the issues together, the fact-finder will have an additional 14 days at least to determine the issues.

The fact-finder is free to mediate a settlement on the issues under investigation. Should the parties agree on a settlement, the fact-finder’s investigation will be terminated and no report will be required. If the fact-finder does issue a report, that report will not constitute a binding decision. It will still be up to the parties to bargain the part-time issue and to bargain in good faith.

Frankly, I am hopeful the fact-finder’s report will provide the assistance both parties need to help solve the outstanding issue that has really been central to this entire dispute. This is an issue that should be resolved through mutual agreement by the parties concerned. It is not one that should be resolved by a solution that is imposed by an outside party.

The use of this fact-finder’s report provides for really a fresh approach that involves only the principal parties. That is as it should be. The bill states that the fact-finder’s report is to be submitted to the minister, the employer and the local by 30 June 1990. In the meantime, the bill does provide for the settlement of the current labour dispute and a resumption of normal services and it requires two-year agreements to follow the expiry of the most recent agreements.

Pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, no strike and no lockout is permitted for the duration of the collective agreements.

The TTC serves people from throughout Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding regions. Close to one million passengers use the TTC each day. All of them have been greatly inconvenienced by the recent disruptions in transit service. Through the bill, the government is seeking to provide a means to end this dispute and its widespread adverse affect on the public. At the same time, importantly, the act respects the principles of the Labour Relations Act and the collective bargaining process.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the minister’s statement?

Mr Cousens: When did you decide to become involved in this dispute and when did the Premier (Mr Peterson) decide to become involved?

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker. Anybody else? Any more comments? If not, the minister.

Hon Mr Phillips: At the request, actually, of the chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, I met with both parties. Frankly, I have to admit that I was reluctant to step in, that I was reluctant to become involved in it. It was only because of a direct request from the chairperson of the TTC to meet and discuss the issue. I told him at that time that in our judgement, this was an issue that must be resolved between the two parties. So we only really became involved as a ministry in the dispute when we brought forward this bill. I did meet with the parties at the request of the TTC, however.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Mackenzie: There are a few things I want to say on this bill and there are a few things I think should clearly be put on the record. The real issue in this dispute was part-timers and whether or not our society is moving -- there is certainly ample evidence, when you look at the jobs created, or the jobs that exist, over the last year or two that we are seeing more and more part-time work in society.

If you take a look at the cost of living today in a city like Toronto or even in my own city of Hamilton or many of the cities in the Golden Horseshoe area, part-timers cannot make it. If there are two in a family, maybe, but part-time work will not pay your rent or buy the food that is needed or the education for your kids today. It is a dangerous slope to go down. It is also a direction that the TTC has been promoting for some time. I think their decision was that this was the contract and this was the year to get it.

A couple of things in the news release that came out on 5 October from the minister disturbed me a little bit. Halfway through his release, he says:

“On the part-time issue, the bill will provide for a fact-finder to investigate and report. Mr Phillips said the appointment of a fact-finder is necessary for two reasons. ‘First, it is vital that a lasting solution to an issue as complex as the part-time employment issue be found. Lasting solutions to complicated collective bargaining problems are solutions that the parties themselves must negotiate. They are not solutions that can be imposed.’” I think I agree with him on that.

“‘Second, labour and management are obliged to solve their own problems. While l am prepared to prevent further public inconvenience, I do not wish to reinforce the belief that labour and management can bargain to a stalemate on issues like this one and then leave it to the government to provide the solution. This bill will get the parties back to work and give them the tools to solve the one remaining issue.’”

I was interested, and noticed that he said -- I think I heard him say in response to one of my colleague’s questions a moment ago -- that the commission initiated the first meeting and wanted this issue resolved, wanted the government involvement. Sure they did. That is very clear in this particular case. Members of the House, I am sure, by now are aware that, depending on which side you talk to, the argument ranges that probably 80 to 85 per cent of the issues were resolved, and there did not seem to be that much of a problem in resolving the remaining issues in terms of the collective agreement.

The issue was very clearly the part-time issue, and it is an issue that should bother all of us, given what is happening in our society today. I think it is one of the prices we are going to pay, increasingly, for the whole free trade arrangement. But that is another argument we will have as this session continues, I am sure.

What was going on in terms of the part-time issue? I submit to you that the commission wanted the government involvement in this particular case, because it had forced the issue on part-timers and was not prepared to look at the proposals that were put there by the union; that this issue, as I said yesterday, could have been settled four or five weeks ago, clearly, if free collective bargaining was really the norm, but as long as the commission felt that maybe it could entice the government in on this particular issue then it was going to hold out, even though as good a deal or a better deal may have been on the table in terms of the part-timers.

For the record, I think it would be a mistake if we did not have on record the arguments made by the local union in the course of the negotiations and the proposals it actually made and tried to negotiate with the commission. First, I would like to quote a letter that went out to the members of the local and to members of Parliament -- I am sure a number of the members got it -- which came from Ray Hutchinson, the president of Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union, and it reads as follows:

“Our union is well aware that there has been much information bandied about, both publicly and privately, on what the issue of ‘part-timers’ is all about. Our concern is that there is all kinds of information, and particularly misinformation, being circulated, both in the media and probably at Metro council, as well as at the provincial level.

“The issue without question is the provision of quality (TTC) transit service to the residents of Metro Toronto.

“Mr Leach supposedly says it’s a question of providing TTC service; though we have some reservations concerning his public posture because we think the TTC management’s real agenda is cost containment as opposed to providing service. Be that as it may, ATU Local 113, also believes the issue is one of providing quality transit service to the residents of Metro Toronto.

“The problem is that our version of providing quality transit service is entirely different than the TTC version of provision of service. What we would like to do is summarize our position and explain, in some clear and precise manner, what the union has proposed in the current set of negotiations which is set out in the current document, The Real Issues in the Current Transit Dispute.”

That is the covering letter. But I think we would be remiss in this House if we did not understand the kind of pressures that are exerted when a major management group thinks that this is the time to cut some of the power of its organized workers. This is not the first time this issue has arisen in negotiations; it has arisen over a number of sets of negotiations with the transit workers in Toronto.

They have been able to hold off, but there are a lot of changes and fear in our society today. We are certainly seeing a growth in part-timers. We are certainly being bombarded with what we have to do to cut back. We are unfortunately seeing that in some of the health services. If it is not a cutback, it is certainly not keeping up the number of legitimate beds. We are seeing it in some of the part-time work that is going into the service sector. We are seeing it right across our society today, and we are not doing anything in terms of protecting those better-paying jobs we have.

So why should a major and proud union like 113 decide that this is the time it is going to let the commission bluff it, let the commission knock down some of the benefits and rights it has gained, let the commission move on the slippery slope down of part-timers, which is exactly what it was trying to do? They knew this was going to be a key issue, but they knew also that they had to deal with it, they knew also that there were some criticisms and they went into the sessions with a number of proposals; three, actually.

Let me go over them, because I think it is worth putting on the record why I said yesterday that this issue, if you had good-faith bargaining on the part of the commission, would have been resolved four weeks ago, and we would not once again have been into compulsory back-to-work legislation. As I said yesterday, and I will admit, this is once when it is benefiting the workers. But let me tell you, the vast majority of times compulsory arbitration is used to hurt organized workers. It is not a good approach and it is one I hope I never see myself supporting in any principled way.

The information from the transit union -- and a lot of people are aware of this, but not the general public and I suspect not most members of this House: “During the negotiations, and subsequently since our job action has been initiated, there is a public perception that the union’s position is simply ‘no part-timers.’”

Incidentally, just for the record, I want to correct a statement I had made yesterday referring to the strike. You get used to that kind of situation. It was never a strike, it was job action, and probably we would have seen the management team locking them out before we would have seen a formal strike in this situation, because it was not in the interests of the workers. That is just to correct the record, that there was never an actual strike involved.

To continue with Mr Hutchinson’s letter:

“The reality is that the union recognizes that there is a problem of scheduling TTC vehicles during peak (am and pm) time slots in the transit system. To address the problem of scheduling and the cancellation of scheduled routes, Local 113 was willing to agree to major concessions that would give the TTC maximum flexibility to address this problem of scheduling and cancellation of regular scheduled routes.

“What the union was willing to agree to was reform of the rules governing the administration of the ‘spare board scheduling concept’ or, in technical terms, ‘rotating slip format,’ and the terms of that proposal were as follows:

“

(1) No fixed report time will allow maximum flexibility within spread restrictions; (2) all known crews can be predetailed; (3) maximized productivity of signed slip persons; (4) reduction of ‘guaranteed costs’ to a minimum; (5) increased availability of day volunteers for rush-hour unmanned runs; (6) reduction in ‘overtime costs’; (7) minimum cancellations.”

I am not going to try to explain in detail all of these steps. I understand them basically, but they are the headlines or highlights of the steps the union put forward in a long and hard attempt to reach a negotiated settlement in this particular slowdown and potential lockout or strike situation.

“This spare board proposal or rotating slip format will allow TTC management complete flexibility in detailing all open work, which would result in the following:

“

(1) The TTC management would have greater latitude and substantive rights to assign work; (2) the TTC management would have greater flexibility to

schedule any and all work during a 12 1/2-hour shift, which would ensure that all scheduled runs are covered; (3) the TTC would have far less liability in terms of paying overtime on all open full shifts; (4) the union’s proposal would result in annual savings to the TTC of between $3 million and $4 million, which is a very significant financial saving.”

“Secondly, the union tabled a second proposal called ‘eight-hour combine worker proposal,’ which in essence would: (1) eliminate unproductive time; (2) provide more flexible scheduling of (am and pm) shifts at straight time.”

“And lastly, the union tabled a very innovative proposal, ‘utilization of maintenance workers as vehicle operators,’ which in practical terms would allow maintenance workers to be utilized as vehicle operators during peak periods. These maintenance personnel are now fully qualified to run and operate system vehicles, so this approach would allow the TTC another flexible scheduling option.”

I hope the members are paying attention, because there were some very definite proposals that were laid out on the table here, and the current investigation in effect was always part of a possible solution.

“These three proposals, together with the union’s agreement that they would work with TTC management in ensuring that these proposals came into operational fruition, would provide the TTC with the necessary solutions to come to grips with the scheduling problems” in Metro Toronto.

“In

summary, the union’s concession and offer of innovative proposals would go a long way to addressing the problem of cancelling prearranged routes.

“The union is totally convinced that if the TTC hired an additional 40 full-time drivers, plus the proposals agreed to by the union, that the TTC could address the whole problem of 660 route cancellations as well as the problem of staffing shifts during the peak am (morning) and pm (afternoon) periods.

“Why the addition of 40 full-time operators? According to the TTC report, Back to Basics -- A TTC Strategy for the 1990s, the TTC ridership is up 96,100,000 riders from the period 1980-88. This is a percentage increase of 24.7 per cent. In addition, TTC mileage is up 19,628,000 miles, an increase of 19 per cent. There has also been an increased demand in the utilization of the fleet for the same period, 1980-88, which has required the addition of 364 new vehicles or an increased growth in the system fleet of 15 per cent.

“What brings this whole period into perspective is the glaring staff shortage, which should have dovetailed the TTC’s service growth. But what the system experienced instead was the hiring of only 229 new operators between 1982-89 or a 5.5 per cent increase in the workforce complement. I go back: riders 24.7 per cent; mileage 19 per cent; new vehicles 15 per cent; a staff increase in that same period of 5.5 per cent.” And really they wanted to do away with -- if not do away with that, see that the future emphasis was on part-timers.

“What has also exacerbated the current staffing problem is that since 1982 the TTC has experienced tremendous growth by adding two new divisions,

(1) Arrow Road and

(2) Malvern, which required in total 716 new operators. But in the same period the TTC has downsized eight established divisions through downsizing the staff complement by 487 full-time operators. So in the final analysis, staff complement for the years 1982-89 has only increased by 229 operators or 5.5 per cent.

“In

summary, over the last seven years: (1) ridership has increased by 24.7 per cent; (2) mileage has increased due to new routes and route extensions by 19 per cent; (3) the number of additional system vehicles (new) has increased by 15 per cent; but the staff complement of operators has increased by only 5.5 per cent and clearly indicates that the system is understaffed and that the union’s position of hiring 40 additional full-time people is totally justified.

“The union has done an analysis of one division, namely, the Danforth Road transportation division, and looked at the hypothetical use of 28 full-time operators versus 28 part-time operators (18 part-timers in the am and 10 part-timers in the pm). The union has concluded that the cost or savings to the TTC in hiring part-timers would amount to $389 per day for the Danforth Road transportation division or $101,233 a year.

“If one extrapolates this cost saving and applies it across the whole system, encompassing 11 traffic divisions, the annual savings to the TTC would be in the vicinity of $1 million per year. This is a far cry from the supposed inflation figures being bandied about by TTC management (see attached analysis).”

There are attached analyses accompanying all of these pages and I am sure the minister or his staff must have looked at it. I know he had a very good negotiator-arbitrator in the person of Vic Pathe doing his darnedest to reach an agreement in this particular situation. I wish the heck we had the right in this House to put some of the people who are involved in these kinds of talks on the stand -- which, of course, we cannot -- to ask a few questions about where the intransigence was in terms of the issue we were dealing with.

“As a matter of fact,” to continue, “the union’s agreement to the spare board proposal would save the TTC substantially more money than the hiring of part-time operators, ie, $3.5 million versus approximately $1 million.

“The union has made major concessions and put forward alternative proposals” -- three of them, if you will recall, that I mentioned, but dealing in detail with the one – “to address the scheduling problems which are currently plaguing the TTC.

“One final key point is that the TTC commission and especially TTC management never intended to bargain in good faith, and the current negotiations subsequently proved this point – and in the final analysis, TTC management were not interested in a negotiated settlement because in reality the TTC wants the Ontario government to impose a political settlement on Local 113 giving the TTC the right to hire part-timers. Thus the rationale for the lockout and complete shutdown of the system on 8 October 1989.

“We feel confident that all the union’s suggestions and proposals would eliminate the problem of cancellations and in the process strengthen the present transit system by ensuring that residents of Metro Toronto have a world-class transit system.”

I took the trouble to read that into the record because I thought it was important, and because before the situation developed to the point where we were facing some kind of union action to enforce its demands, the union people met with us and told us that they understood that the arguments that would be made would be having to keep workers on hand for split runs and all the rest of it, that the arguments would be made that there was a waste in the system.

They thought the figures -- and I think the figures do shoot that right out the window -- in terms of the increase in mileage, vehicles and passengers as against the increase in staff -- but they understood that this would be the kind of an argument that would be made by the commission.

They also pointed out -- as I knew and some of my colleagues did, as well, from sitting down with them prior to the last couple of labour disputes and contract negotiations -- that the TTC had made a major effort in the past two sets of negotiations to be given the right, almost unlimited -- they finally backed off this time around to say: “Well, we limit it to 400” -- or whatever the number is – “part-timers.” But they wanted the right to move to the part-time route.

Once you allow a major company to move in the part-time direction, you are undermining and threatening the security and wages of all of your full-time workers in that unit, or of a good number of them, because it will not stop once it has established the principle.

That is why you saw such an overwhelming support, probably more for this labour dispute than any they have had previously: The workers understood it was D-Day for them; that this time, given the general atmosphere in our society and the bit of fear that is there in terms of some of the economic future, that the TTC better run with it. They threatened, they ran with it and backed off the part-time issue in the last couple of sets of negotiations, but this time was the time that they got it.

We had no idea, and the workers in Local 113 and in the other two locals that are involved, had no idea of how far it would go once the principle was established. The workers clearly said: “No way. We’ve got to stand up.” I hope more and more workers in more and more plants across this province take the same kind of position: “We’re going to have to fight like hell to protect what we’ve got. We’d better do it, and we’d also better take a look at what’s bothering people or some of the weaknesses in the system and come up with alternatives.”

I have never found a responsible trade union unwilling to take a look at ideas if they are good ones. Maybe there are some arguments against some of the proposals that I have outlined here, but they are in detail. They have put the sheets with them and the backup sheets and the figures and the costs, and they thought they would work, and they really were not demolished -- that is one of the reasons I would like to have the arbitrator here, to see just what all went on in the negotiations -- but I am told that they were in no way demolished by the commission.

The commission simply wanted to establish that this was the time: “We’re going to take these guys on and we’re going to win the right to run the system the way we want to run it.”

I hope we will never have a government that says, “Hey, that’s a good way to go.” We have now in effect compulsory arbitration, which I do not like. The reason that it is probably a little easier to take this time, as I said at the beginning, is that about 80 per cent of issues were resolved. The usual process, unless we are going to get euchred some other way, is that when you go to compulsory arbitration, they accept what has been resolved by the two parties; any decisions they make are on those few items that are not resolved.

We sent out for a study, which I understand will take nine months, which in effect really is two years because it does not have to be implemented when it comes back, but which will take a look at the arguments that have been made and the necessity of or lack thereof of part-time workers. I would hope and I would expect -- I cannot see any responsible investigator doing otherwise than taking a close look at the arguments that were made by the union, taking a look at the arguments that were made by management, but I think they are going to be found wanting, and making some recommendations which then are not going to be compulsory.

That is why I say once again that this time the workers have benefited from a piece of legislation that I personally do find abhorrent. But then the two parties are going to have to sit down with one additional bit of information, and that is the study that has been done in some detail as to whether or not the alternatives suggested are answers and whether or not the route we should be going in society today is to push for more and more part-timers with all of the problems that really does bring us in our society.

I think that if there was a clear understanding -- I have some information already that the commission is not very happy with this proposal -- if it had been made very, very clear that we were not going to order them back, they are going to have to resolve it, we may have had discomfort, and none of us like it for the residents that have problems in getting to work with the system, but we would not have had the government step in.

The only thing that saved this doggone thing is that they have not. This time, and to this extent I commend this government, they have not bowed to -- maybe it will be a Tory amendment or something, I do not know, I hope not, that we should have also instructed that we are going to bring in a compulsory report in terms of the part-timers.

The fact that it is open, that it is not compulsory even after the investigation is done, I think means that two years from now you are going to have a very good talk in terms of the collective bargaining with a lot more information available to all of the parties and with one party not being able to hide behind a decision that we want to be able to run the show our way, which is exactly what was at stake in this particular dispute.

I would hope that this may signal a firming up of the position of workers right across this province in terms of the trend to part-time employees and also in terms of the trend to takebacks, which I think I mentioned a few months ago.

One of the things that is disturbing me in talking to my union colleagues, even though it is an effort to break out of some of the percentage guidelines in terms of actual wages that they have had imposed on them over the last two or three years, is that there are other subtle and sometimes not too subtle ways that most managements are presenting, something they never used to do, a list of takebacks they want at the beginning of almost every set of negotiations.

I guess the principle is, “Well, if we do this, whether we win it or not, at least we are going to knock down any demands you have got and we are going to in this way undermine or reduce the effective bargaining strength of the workers’ representatives.”

I would remind all members, as I have done a good many times, that I would suggest they do take a look at the

preamble to the Labour Relations Act in the province of Ontario where it states clearly, if it is meant, that it is in the interest of the province of Ontario that workers have the right to free collective bargaining. I think that is an important principle. It is one that is under fire now. I do not think you can talk to a negotiator or a union rep in the province of Ontario who will not tell you that that principle is under fire with the takebacks and the kind of approach that management is using.

In effect, that is exactly what we had here from the TTC, and this issue should not have required this kind of legislation. Our party will not be carrying out the kind of a fight we have done many times in the past over back-to-work legislation. I still will not support it. I have never voted for it in my life and I doubt that I will, but I think we have to understand what this particular dispute was all about and the fact that those TTC workers, God bless them, decided that they were not going to be put down by the commission this time around and they were not going to back off.

They were not going to be required to undermine whatever security they had been able to build up in the jobs they have had through, I think, positive union action.

I think it is important that that information be clearly put on the record, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: It is a serious bill and it has caused a serious inconvenience and problems to the greater Toronto area for an extended period of time. The government has brought forward a bill which we will be supporting and which we will have amendments to.

But I have a number of questions and issues surrounding the process and I challenge the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) to reconsider and rethink some of the comments he has already made this afternoon in response to the first question and the only questions that I asked him when he made his introductory remarks. I will be coming to that and I trust the minister will comment on it in his wrapup statement.

I am not thrilled and not pleased, and neither are the people of Toronto, with what has gone on. It has been not just a minor inconvenience. In fact, when I looked at the press clippings of the minister, it would appear as if it is just a passing incident in a big city, as if just another little rattling of chain or something. It is far more than that.

I happen to believe that unless this government and unless this province begins to work in a concerted way with the TTC, GO Transit and all the commuter services and integrated commuter service around the greater Toronto area, what we saw in the last five weeks is a prelude to what is going to go on in the province of Ontario in the mid-1990s and beyond, because we have to come up with a long-term answer to commuter services so that people will use commuter services.

The fact of the matter is that the inconvenience that was caused, the tremendous impact on the economy to the greater Toronto area because of the transportation crisis we had, the tremendous inconvenience to homes and households during that period of time, we look at all these factors and bring them together and what do we have? We have a sign of trouble. It portends of what the future could look like in the greater Toronto area unless this government takes seriously its responsibility of providing for long-term commuter services.

The fact of the matter is the fact that this was allowed to drag out as long as it was seemed as if it was part of a political agenda of the Ontario Liberal Party to just let it drag out and wait until the day came when we came back to this House on 10 October, so therefore let it twiddle around and play with it until, finally, it just came up to that weekend, late last week, when some action was taken.

I go back to a statement made by the Premier when on 6 September he said this: “It is not the government’s responsibility to get involved. We are not planning on interfering. They are both over 21. They are both mature groups.” The Premier said that on 6 September.

The Minister of Labour was making the same kinds of utterings during the strike when he was saying: “No, we are not going to get involved. We are just going to stay clear of it.” I wonder when it all happened, when the Premier said on 6 September: “It is not the government’s responsibility to get involved. We are not planning on interfering. They are both over 21. They are both mature groups.”

When I asked the minister just a few moments ago when he had his first meeting with the people involved, he did not answer the question. He said, “Well, it was management that was giving me a call and therefore I began to get involved.” I challenge the honourable minister on who called whom. I happen to believe that there is far more involved with the minister’s involvement in this whole situation than he is willing to let on.

He is pretending to this House that he was dragged into it. I have to say he chose to get involved and when he said in the House here just a few moments ago that it was just a matter of someone calling, I know Alan Tonks gave him a call. I know there has been some involvement but I would hope that right from the very beginning the minister was involved.

I think there is something urgently important to the services of our whole community, that transportation is not something that the minister and the Premier are going to take lightly. That is really what he is trying to tell us. He is trying to tell us, as the honourable Minister of Labour, that it is just something that will be looked after.

I would like to have the minister come clean and lay out on the table of this House in the forum that we have for debate or when we get into committee when he had meetings with both sides.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: If the honourable member wants to get up and speak, we would be glad to listen to him. If he is just going to sit in his chair and carp away and have nothing to do with what is going on in the place, I would ask the honourable Speaker to do what he should do when there is this kind of outburst from unruly mobsters sitting in the back seat in the Liberal Party, move from one side to the other. But if they are going to start making comments, then I would be more than pleased to sit down and allow them to add what they have to say. I would be most interested in listening to them.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Cousens: I would like to ask the honourable Minister of Labour just who called whom to the meeting. It was as if, when I asked him when he had his first meeting, they called him. Who called whom? He is the one who called both sides to a meeting last Thursday. Where did that meeting take place? It was in his office. Why is he acting in the way that he is when the Premier said there was no room for government involvement?

I have to say it is an issue that has to do with the credibility of the government, when on the one hand you have a strike that is in progress, and then during the early part of September, I was saying: “Let’s get something going. Let’s have some action taken. Is there no way in which the government can become involved?” and what you were seeing then and hearing now is sort of, “Oh, it will solve itself.”