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

December 17, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L025 - Thu 17 Dec 1987 / Jeu 17 déc 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ANNIE TAYLOR

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

POLLUTION CONTROL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

RESPONSES

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

ONTARIO’S BICENTENNIAL

INTERVENER FUNDING

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

ACCESS FUND

LABOUR DISPUTE

ARBITRATION BOARD RULING

POLICE DUTIES

FUNERAL SERVICES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HUNTING RESTRICTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION ACT

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

GARBAGE RECYCLING PROGRAMS ACT

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

POLL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. M. C. Ray moved resolution 7:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should amend the Insurance Act, RSO 1980, to regulate prepaid premiums for motor vehicle liability insurance policies to provide that premiums are held in trust for the insured until earned, and interest earned on the trust funds, until transferred from trust, would be paid to the insured.

Mr. M. C. Ray: The intention of the resolution is to provide motor vehicle owners with two forms of assistance, the first being that the premium money paid in advance to insurance companies remains the money of the insured vehicle owner until it is actually earned by the company. If prepaid premiums are trust moneys in the hands of insurance companies, motor vehicle owners are protected from the loss of their advance payments in the event of bankruptcy or receivership of the insurance company.

Second, this resolution provides that interest be paid to motor vehicle owners on premiums paid in advance. Under the current situation, insurance companies demand advance payment from their policyholders, with limited opportunity for instalment payments and, of course, without compensation for the lost income that policyholders thereby incur. The result is that the insurance companies have substantial cash flow without the funds being at risk.

All this is to the detriment of motor vehicle owners who prepay premiums for no immediate service in return and lose the interest income on their prepayment. In this day of higher and escalating insurance premiums, these types of benefits will assist, protect or reduce the burden on policyholders, particularly low-income earners, young drivers and fleet operators.

This resolution is consistent with other consumer legislation in recent years which has sought to protect consumers from the loss of prepaid moneys and which compelled trustees of the moneys to pay or credit interest thereon to the consumer. Members of this House will recall some examples.

The intent of the recently introduced Prepaid Services Act is to provide consumer protection from loss of travel funds paid in advance and to provide for interest payments to the traveller. The Prepaid Funeral Services Act similarly creates a trust situation to protect the consumer and provides that the consumer rather than the funeral director or operator receives the interest income. In a similar fashion, the Landlord and Tenant Act and/or the Residential Tenancies Act provide that interest be paid annually to the tenant on deposits made for the last month’s rent.

This resolution arises out of a complaint I received from a constituent, a Michael L. McCourt, president and general manager of a family owned and operated business in Windsor known as McCourt Cartage Ltd. This company, which was established in 1928, employs 50 people and has survived all depressions and recessions since that day. Mr. McCourt writes as follows, in part:

“I would like to know how an insurance company can demand that you put a deposit premium up front before you receive insurance and not have to pay any interest on this money even though they will obviously use this money to generate income.

“In 1985, I was informed by my insurance company that they were not going to renew my fleet insurance policy. This left us in a hell of a fix because it left only about three companies writing the insurance that we needed. We found a company to write our insurance at about three times the premium we paid the previous year.

“If that was not bad enough, they demanded that we send them $35,000 up front before the policy could be issued. We were still required to pay our premiums every month according to our gross revenue and we were to receive nothing for the money that we sent them.

“As luck would have it, this company’s parent company got into financial trouble. The company was wound down and my money, which was not owed to them or earned by them, was thrown into the pot with all other moneys.

“I then had to scramble and managed to become insured with Markel at twice the premium that was required with United Canada. Now, in less than one year, I was paying five times what my premiums had been. Markel also required that I send them $50,000 before they would issue a policy.

“It has been almost two years now and the money is still somewhere within the Markel organization. They are free to use the money to generate income and I, even though it is my money, am not entitled to any of it.

I have two questions:

“1. Why should my money that was given to United Canada up front be put into a common pot and returned to me at so many cents on the dollar?

“2. How come Markel can take my $50,000 and utilize it in any way they please to generate income and I do not receive anything for it?”

I believe this letter demonstrates some of the fundamental deficiencies and unfairness of the current insurance act which this resolution seeks to remedy. I therefore trust that honourable members of this Legislature will approve this resolution and I urge the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to bring forward appropriate amendments to the Insurance Act.

Mr. Swart: I want to deal with the resolution we have before us and I want to say at the very beginning that there is not a member in this House who does not know about the problems related to auto insurance. Regardless of what members in the government party have said when the debate took place, they are not having many people come to them about their problems. If they are not, I suggest it is because people know members are not receptive to their problems. But I suggest everyone here knows about the problems that do exist in auto insurance as far as the drivers of this province are concerned.

Although the intent of the member’s resolution may be good and may be genuine, I really think it is one of the silliest resolutions I have seen before this Legislature because it really does not do anything to resolve the horrendous problems that do exist for drivers in this province. It is another attempt by people in the government party to flail around and pretend to be doing something about insurance but not do anything real. This does not deal with the real problems in the auto insurance industry, and I am sure members of this House, if they think in some depth, will realize that.

I am not sure why the member limited this to liability insurance. I would think if they were going to set up this money in a trust, it would be all the money paid in for insurance, so why the member only mentions liability I do not know. That in itself proves again how weak and ineffective is the resolution we have before us. Certainly, it does not deal with the problem that the member’s own constituent had of having his rates go up three times. His insurance rates tripled. The resolution only deals with one small part of that.

I also have to wonder whether the member does support his own government with regard to a rate review board. If he does -- and of course I do not because a rate review board is not the answer either -- then he must know that the proposed board, according to statements by the former Minister of Financial Institutions and even statements of the present Minister of Financial Institutions, will consider all income, including the interest on the money that comes in, and will set the rates based on all that income.

It is perfectly obvious if one is going to have that interest accrue to the benefit of the person who pays the premium, as this implies, it means that the industry will not get that money and in fact the rates will have to be increased to make up for this money which the industry no longer gets as revenue. It will be paid out and accrue to the premiums for that member, so it is not going to have any beneficial effect under the rate review board. It will have no beneficial effect whatsoever on the rate a person will be paying.

We are talking here, I suppose, about interest reductions in the neighbourhood of about $135 million altogether, which sounds like quite a lot. To me, and perhaps to you too, Mr. Speaker, $135 million sounds like quite a bit but, as I say, that is $135 million the companies will not get so they will have to up the rates to make up for that amount. In my understanding, about half of the premiums written now are for a six-month period in auto insurance and about half of the premiums are for a year. Considering the total premiums are about $3 billion, that is about the money that would be saved.

It is important to point out that is the exact amount of money the Minister of Financial Institutions will take from the motorists of this province and give to the insurance companies on January 1, 1988, by allowing the 4.5 per cent increase, an increase which, incidentally, he has awarded to them without doing the slightest investigation to determine whether they need that increase. It is wholly ineffective in dealing with the insurance problem we have.

By contrast, it is worth pointing out, as was pointed out by my leader, that the latest figures which come from the insurance industry show that last year, 1986, the companies used an amount equal to 42.5 cents of every premium dollar in expenses and profit, which means that the people only got 57.5 per cent back on every dollar they paid in. The public plan in British Columbia, and these figures are taken from the annual report, uses only 20 cents on the dollar and pays back 80 cents in claims. In Manitoba, it is 20.4 per cent. If we had a public plan here --

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: I will ignore the interjections, Mr. Speaker. You would applaud that attitude, would you not?

If we had one of those public plans here and we could save 22.5 per cent, that would be $675 million the government would be saving for the people of this province and it would not have to raise premiums to save that kind of money as will have to be done with the proposal being made by the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray).

This does not deal, of course, with the whole problem of interest. The insurance companies make tremendous interest on their investments. The member is proposing getting back the interest on premiums until they are earned, but what about the interest insurance companies are making on their investments? Last year, according to Statistics Canada, they made in the neighbourhood of $1.7 billion interest on investments. That is all their investments, but auto insurance is the big one. Auto insurance is the one where the money stays for a long period of time, where they get most of their interest on investments.

Boy, would I ever like to see a resolution here in this House that all the money in interest on their investments be returned to reduce premiums. If we got that kind of money coming back in, it would have some meaning, as the money comes back in in the western provinces. Last year in British Columbia, I am going by memory but I believe the amount that came back in to reduce premiums equalled 18 per cent of the premiums. In Manitoba, something like 14 percent or 16 per cent came back in to reduce premiums.

We do not start touching the interest rates on what people should be getting back. Mr. Speaker, you would understand, I am sure, that of the total premiums paid in this year by three years from now less than half of that money is paid out in claims. So the insurance companies have huge investments on which they are drawing interest, but there is no law in Ontario at the present time which says that money must be used to reduce premiums, even though that is the money people paid in.

There is no doubt in my mind that, as sincere as the member may be in introducing this resolution, it has no reality in dealing with the massive problems that exist in the insurance industry as far as drivers are concerned in this province. It has no real impact; in fact, it will not have any impact at all on reducing rates for the people of this province and, therefore, this resolution, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless. I am not prepared to vote in this House for meaningless things with regard to auto insurance. I want the real thing, a driver-owned public insurance plan for this province.

Mr. Runciman: It is always interesting to listen to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). If you mention the United States or insurance companies, the members of the New Democratic Party go into a frenzy. It is predictable. I go into a frenzy when you mention the Liberal Party.

It is with some regret that I want to inform the member for Windsor-Walkerville that our party, as well as the official opposition, is not going to support his resolution. I can appreciate the time pressures that he found himself in as a new member when he was told, following the draw, he had to get a piece of business in there in very short order, so you do what you can.

But I feel this is somewhat a case of overkill in respect to the insurance industry with Bill 2 before this House, which is obviously a very significant piece of business, and now the member’s bill which again, in my view, uses the insurance industry as whipping boys. In the end, the people who really are hurt by this kind of legislation, specially by the significant interference into the private sector of Bill 2, are the consumers of this province.

I have been trying to talk about where this government is taking us in respect to auto insurance. I said during the debate on Bill 2 that that particular bill was a first step on the slippery slope towards government-run, state-run auto insurance. I believe that, and I believe the second step will come early in the new year in an announcement that we are going to move towards comprehensive no-fault insurance.

In my view at least, this government, at least the key players, is a left-wing interventionist group. One of the comments in a journal yesterday -- it was the official Liberal Party organ, the Red Star, as it is known in certain circles -- in an

article by Rosemary Speirs, was that the speech of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) indicated that there may be a constitutional challenge against the free trade agreement. One of the concerns expressed was that the free trade agreement would limit the government’s ability to intervene in the economy, but specifically, it could compel the government to compensate private insurance companies when the government moves to state-run auto insurance.

I thought that was a pretty significant little item and in my view is indicative of the mindset of the key players in that government, the people who really make the decisions, the five or six people on the front benches and the people in the office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the people who really make the decisions in this government.

Another significant comment that was made during the debate on Bill 2, which received no notice, was the remark of the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that public auto insurance, state-run auto insurance, was not anathema to the Deputy Premier. He did not find anything terribly wrong with state-run auto insurance. That is the Deputy Premier making a comment like that.

People who have been supportive of this government for the past two and a half years, especially those in the business world, say, “Well, they have to make these kinds of adjustments because of the folks on this side.” The reality is what we have been saying, that essentially we have a government that is anti-business and Bill 2 is a significant intrusion and this ballot item 7 is more interference in the private sector, interference that in many cases is not justified and will hurt the interests of consumers in this province in years to come.

Talking about some specifics about the ballot item -- and perhaps the member would want to respond to them in the time that is left to him -- the resolution does not specify how interest is to be calculated on the unearned portion of the premium. Is it to be calculated on a monthly basis or on an annual basis? We hope the sponsor will deal with that later in the debate.

The resolution does not specify how the interest is to be paid to the insured. For instance, payment could take the form of a cash transfer, where the interest could be applied to the insured’s account as a credit against the next premium payment; or using a discounted cash-flow approach, the premium could be reduced by the estimated amount of the interest earned on the unearned premiums.

In our view, the resolution would create an administrative problem for the insurance companies. They would have to track, for every insured person, the portion of the premium that was unearned, the amount of interest earned on the unearned portion of the premium and provide for payout or crediting of the interest.

In short, this resolution would set up a system that would increase the companies’ administrative costs. One thing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has been talking about is that the administrative costs of insurance companies are excessive now. What we are suggesting through this resolution is that we are going to further increase those administrative costs. What happens again? We have increased pressure on the premiums, the money that you and I pay out.

In addition, the resolution would cut into an insurance company’s return on its investment portfolio, which is funded by reserves and unearned premiums. By reducing investment income, the resolution would put upward pressure on premiums. That is what we have been hearing about in the past two and a half years, the concern about premiums, the increases in premiums. We have this resolution coming into the House that again is going to achieve directly the opposite of what we all would like to see occur, that is, increased upward pressure on auto insurance premiums in this province.

Hopefully, the member will respond to that as well. We have taken a look at it, we have talked to a number of people in the industry and one consumer group, and we are having difficulty finding any support out there for this resolution simply because of the impact it could have on premiums.

We are certainly going to be strongly opposing Bill 2 during the committee hearing process and introducing a number of amendments which we think could make it palatable. There is no doubt, with the government numbers, that the bill in February, when the House resumes -- that is, if we just do not keep going right through until February, which I guess is a real possibility given the attitude of the government House leader. In any event, whenever we have to deal with Bill 2, which I do not think will be any later than mid-February, it is obvious that it is going to pass, and probably in all likelihood it is going to pass unamended.

We think it is wrong, to say the least, to proceed with a resolution like this, which again, I suspect, is going to have the support of the member’s colleagues. But I hope the minister responsible, the Minister of Financial Institutions, does not take that as any clear indication of the wishes of this House, because quite clearly it certainly is not the wish of this party or the official opposition. We do not want him to read anything into the vote that is going to occur later this morning other than support for a fellow colleague.

We are going to see Bill 2 go into the system. I predict that it is going to have dire consequences for the consumers of this province. It is going to lead directly where these folks want the government to go, but not quickly enough, obviously. In any event, we think Bill 2 is going to go into the system. We will see what happens. We should not be further tinkering with the system at this stage.

Therefore, our party cannot and will not support the member’s resolution, although I do wish him a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Mr. Callahan: I have listened very closely to what I would refer to as the bookends. First, we had the extreme left and then we had the extreme right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Now we have the mushy middle.

Mr. Callahan: That is right. Now we have middle of the road. Middle of the road, just like bland, is what the people of Ontario really look forward to. They proved that in the last election. Mr. Grossman, who was the bookend on the right end, found himself out on Bay Street simply because he was to the right of Attila the Hun. I think that is a message that perhaps suddenly should filter over to the third party, that right wing does not work. I think perhaps it should filter over to the official opposition that left wing does not work, but I want to get on to the meat of the particular motion.

I thought the member for Welland-Thorold, who is usually a very gracious individual, was somewhat hard on our new member for Windsor-Walkerville in immediately saying that his resolution is silly. Nothing in this House, by any honourable member, is silly. It is a conscious effort to try to serve his community and the province of Ontario. On the other side of the coin, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), the right end of the bookends, was very fair.

He perhaps put it in perspective when he said that when a new member comes to Queen’s Park and finds himself or herself early on the ballot, he looks to contribute something meaningful in the capital of Ontario. In so doing, he presents his ballot and presents his issue.

When I first looked at the motion, preparatory to speaking on it, I was not quite clear what the member was trying to get at. I have had an opportunity of hearing his opening comments and I think his opening comments have been missed by both the right and left bookends. In fact, what this gentleman is saying is that we should have protection for individuals who pay their premiums in good faith to an insurance company and perhaps find that insurance company does not survive and goes under.

What he is saying is, if you pay for a commodity, there should be some degree of protection, that in fact that premium that is prepaid will be saved if the insurance company does not survive the period for which they have contracted to provide coverage.

Mr. Wildman: That is not like you.

Mr. Callahan: I would have read it a different way. In fact, the way I read it at first was I presumed that the member was saying that if you prepay your premium the insurance company has an obligation to provide interest on your prepayment. With that, I would have to disagree simply because the contract of insurance is one to cover you for liability against an accident.

They do not say, “We are covering you for tomorrow morning and then we will cover you for the next day and then we will cover you for the day after.” They enter into a binding agreement that says, “We will cover you if you have an accident.” That being the case, then the commodity has been purchased and, therefore, the price has been paid in full. I suggest under those circumstances interest would be inappropriate.

I think interest is more appropriate in cases where there is a trust imposed upon the money. I suppose any member of the Legislature who is of that revered profession, although down here it does not seem to be so revered, the legal profession, will know that on your trust account interest is paid. In the past, institutions, such as the banks, used to have the opportunity of just keeping that money. Then the august body that governs lawyers got smart and they halved it with the bank.

Half of it went to support the legal aid program and the other half went to the bank and the bank then did not charge any service charges on the particular lawyer’s trust -- I am not sure if it is trust or general account. In fact, that is the place where I think interest is required.

Now if the member is saying that these are trust monies -- and if in fact they are trust monies -- then interest is appropriate, but I do not think that is the case. I think in the matter of insurance you are buying the commodity. You have effected your contract and you have paid for it. You are not entitled to interest.

However, then I thought to myself, on the other side of the coin and you can argue this about three different ways; I am about to go into the third way. If you paid your premium on a monthly basis you in fact pay a charge to the insurance company to pay it on a monthly basis.

Now if they can charge you to pay it on a monthly basis, then it might follow, from what the member for Windsor-Walkerville has said in his motion, that they should perhaps pay interest on the prepayment; which raises something that always bothered me with things such as utility bills. Utility bills would always charge you a penalty if you did not pay them before a certain date, and that was a problem for people who were senior citizens and had budgeted their funds, and yet, if they paid in advance, there might in some cases, not always, be a discount. I figure that what is fair for one side is fair for the other side.

In addition to that, what the member for Windsor-Walkerville is suggesting is not really all that outrageous, because this Legislature, about five, perhaps 10 years ago, introduced a concept of prejudgement interest. The whole rationale of introducing that prejudgement interest was to avoid exactly what was going on. There were lengthy delays in settling lawsuits, particularly motor vehicle accidents, where the money sat in the coffers of the insurance companies until a settlement was finally effected.

It was an incentive, let us say, to get on with the issue and to see that people were compensated for the very nub of what insurance is for, to compensate people who are injured, who have suffered loss, and not to string out a process to their detriment.

We thought that prejudgement interest was an excellent tool to deal with that. We now find that prejudgement interest may very well be at the root of the high cost of insurance. So, to this extent, I agree with the member for Leeds-Grenville -- and this is probably the last time I will ever agree with the gentleman from Leeds-Grenville -- if you are going to adjust or tamper with a particular piece of legislation it is imperative that it be done in such a way that you examine the impacts. I think that old law of physics is that to every action there will be an equal reaction.

So I would love to support the motion by my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville because I know how it is in this House, as a rookie, to introduce a motion and have everybody vote against it, because that happened to me. I introduced a motion which would require municipal councillors to vote their salaries in advance of their going to the polls for an election, and not being able to change their salaries for the entire term, other than to reduce their salaries.

The honourable members in this House did not think that was a good motion even though perhaps a year prior to that, the trustees, under the Education Act, had in fact been governed by exactly the same amendment.

So I say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the fact that he may or may not lose this motion should not discourage him because oft-times the vote that takes place in this House, particularly during private member’s hour, has not been given the thought that perhaps it should have been given; and the statement that he makes today, which is voted against as perhaps not being appropriate at this hour, may be appropriate some hour down the line.

I say that I feel very badly that I cannot vote for it, but I think, for the reasons I have just stated, that on either one of the principles it would be inappropriate and I will be voting against the motion.

Mr. Farnan: I would just like to make some general remarks relevant to the debate surrounding the private member’s bill and to introduce them by some observations.

First, I do have respect for the viewpoints put forward by the Progressive Conservative members on most issues, mainly because I know where they stand. They seem to state what their position is. They are usually wrong, but at least I do know where they stand. That is very admirable. At the same time, I have some fondness for positions put forward by the Liberal members. Generally speaking, given time, given a lot of persuasion and given many years of hard work, they can be persuaded to take progressive positions that are valuable, but it does take time and it does take a lot of hard work.

Last night, when reading over an

article by Tommy Douglas, a famous Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and New Democratic Party leader, I was reflecting and recalling his parable of mouseland. It struck me that in my short experience in the House much that has transpired here fits very comfortably into the parable described by Tommy Douglas. Most of the members here are familiar with that parable and I will not go over it and recount it.

Mr. Fleet: I haven’t heard it. I want to hear it.

Mr. McClelland: I want to hear it.

Mr. Farnan: Just for the record, let me make the point that the mice of mouseland, as they trooped to the polls, elected a government of black cats. Of course, the problem for those unfortunate mice was that the cats passed laws that were good for cats. When they were totally disillusioned with the black cats -- sometimes it takes a long time; sometimes it takes up to 42 years -- and another election rolled around, what happened was they voted in the white cats. The white cats made promises.

In this parable, Tommy Douglas points out that, unfortunately, a particular brand of cat is even more dangerous to the mice, and that is the type of cat that is spotted, cats that speak like mice and think and act like cats. I look at the analogy we face today, the analogy of free trade, and I see what is happening. We have cats that are speaking like mice but thinking and acting like cats.

I see this morning that the private member’s bill, as the member for Welland-Thorold pointed out, does not really grasp the root problems in the insurance industry. There is some little bit of movement there, but it does not address the real problems. Of course, the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), who said he could not support the bill, in his statement said, “You now, maybe down the road we can support this bill.” Maybe that is four or five years down the road.

Maybe in 42 years this government could support this bill, but right now it is not going to attack the essential problems in the insurance industry. That is for sure; not with this private member’s bill and not with the government bill presently before the House. They are not going to attack the problems in the insurance industry until they address the real issues as they were described by the member for Welland-Thorold.

It is a reality, whether it is insurance or whether it is free trade, that as we look at issues coming forward from private members on the government side of the House or at government bills coming forward from the government side of the House, what we have in essence is legislation that does not address the real needs of the people of Ontario. They talk the language. They have camouflage. They go out there and give the impression that indeed their real interest is for the ordinary people of this province, but we must remember that their agenda is an agenda for cats and not for mice.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, does the member for Windsor-Walkerville wish to reply?

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have just a few remarks. First, this motion was not intended to be, as some might suggest, an all-inclusive answer to the auto industry problems. It is interesting again to listen to the New Democratic Party chorus, as it usually is, with regard to publicly owned auto insurance.

I would like to have the members of the opposition come to my riding as they did during the election and explain to senior citizens and the elderly who cannot afford or do not want to drive automobiles why they should pay to subsidize the auto insurance premiums of taxi fleets, trucking companies and other drivers, because that is exactly what happens when the government is called upon to subsidize publicly owned companies.

Mr. Wildman: What a silly, silly comment.

Mr. M. C. Ray: The western experience, which they do not like to refer to, shows us that millions upon millions have been pumped in to subsidize publicly owned auto insurance plans. That means ordinary taxpayers, ordinary people who pay to run the government, have to subsidize the trucking companies and the taxi fleets and others who can afford to own an automobile and can afford to pay auto insurance. I do not think that is a fair system.

Mr. Wildman: Why are you putting down the elderly so much?

Mr. M. C. Ray: I invite the member to come to 920 Ouellette in Windsor, a senior citizen’s building, and explain to those people why they should pay auto insurance through their tax system.

Mr. Wildman: You obviously don’t talk to them. They care a lot more than you do.

Mr. M. C. Ray: I just went through an election in that city, the capital of labour in Canada, I might tell the member, in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville where the taxpayers of this province did not buy his program.

I do not think Mr. McCourt in Windsor thinks this resolution is silly. I do not think this House thought similar legislation was silly when it passed the Prepaid Hospital and Medical Services Act, when it passed the Prearranged Funeral Services Act, and when it passed the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Residential Tenancies Act which provided that interest would be paid and that moneys would be impressed with a trust in some circumstances.

That is the nature of this motion. It is not meant to be an all-inclusive answer to the auto insurance question. The Liberal platform is extensive in that regard and members will hear a great deal about it when we come to deal with Bill 2 and the other forms of relief the public is entitled to with respect to the problems in the insurance industry.

The Deputy Speaker: This concludes the debate on Mr. Ray’s resolution. As this debate was supposed to end at 11:02 this morning, the standing orders provide that the time available will be divided equally. Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed to the next order of the day?

Agreed to.

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Reville moved second reading of Bill 50,

An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation, of which he may reserve any portion for the windup at the end.

Mr. Reville: I am proud to present to the Legislature today Bill 50, the Community Mental Health Services Act. As I read the cover of the bill, where it says, “1st Session, 34th Legislature, Ontario,” I note how happy I am to be a member of this 34th Legislature. I also note that it says “36 Elizabeth II, 1987.” It was in 1967, almost exactly 20 years ago, when I was discharged from Kingston Psychiatric Hospital after having spent a year and a half there.

I came out into a community which had virtually nothing in the way of community mental health services. In those days, many of the kinds of services we talk about today did not yet exist. In the 20 years that have passed, a great deal has happened. I think one of the most remarkable things that has happened in terms of the way we deal with the mentally ill in Ontario is the phenomenon called deinstitutionalization. In fact, Ontario, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, actually closed down 75 per cent of its psychiatric hospital beds. People who had spent many, many years in institutions were suddenly released into communities that were ill-prepared to receive them.

There is no question that over the last 20 years there has been a growth in community mental health programming, so that today in Ontario the Ministry of Health is spending about $65 million on community mental health programming. This is not to say, however, that this level of programming is adequate.

There are some excellent programs available, but in almost every case the demand exceeds the supply and in many cases the services are available in a very spotty way For instance, north of the French River, in 1986 there were only 34 supported housing beds; 34 beds for people coming out of hospital in all of northern Ontario. It strikes me that this is one of the most glaring inadequacies in our community mental health services.

I want to remind the members of the Legislature of something that may already have been brought to their attention for other reasons. Today is the second anniversary of the death of Drina Joubert who died of exposure not very far from the Legislature in a truck in an alleyway on Sherbourne Street. In her memory, the Legislature is behooved to take action to put in place the kinds of supportive services that would have saved her life.

During the inquest into the circumstances surrounding Drina Joubert’s death, it was estimated that in the last year of her life, Ms. Joubert consumed over $85,000 worth of services of various kinds. Regrettably, the services she consumed were not timely; nor were they appropriate. They included days on which she was using a hospital bed in a psychiatric unit of a general hospital at around $500 a day. There were days when she was in a detox at around $90 a day. There were days when she was in the Queen Street Mental Health Centre at around $200 a day.

There were many, many days when she was in a hostel at around $25 a day. Then, of course, there were those days when she slept in the truck at no cost to society but clearly at no benefit to her.

Her story is a good example, in my view, of the situation that confronts people who have had mental health problems and who may have them again. They are at times overresourced and at other times badly underresourced.

The implications of the lack of community supports are serious. One implication is that we have a large number of blocked hospital beds, some would estimate more than the Provincial Auditor suggests at 25 per cent. Those beds are blocked because the people who occupy the beds, while not seriously ill, cannot be released into the community because there is nothing to which to release them.

Another implication is the 60 per cent to 70 per cent recidivism rate for people with a serious mental illness. On any given day at a place like the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the census of that hospital has already been there once this year. Community mental health program delivery people say it is the lack of community support that deepens or creates crises so that people have to be rehospitalized.

The third implication, of course, is the daily and often desperate struggle for survival that people undergo between periods of hospitalization, in which often their only home is a crummy boarding and lodging house, often in a

section of town like Parkdale. Sometimes a 24-hour doughnut store is their home. At all times, many ex-psychiatric patients face severe economic deprivation and severe social deprivation, without something meaningful to do, without a decent place to live and without adequate income.

The auditor’s report, I am grateful to say, points out some of the failings of our community mental health system. For instance, the auditor notes the shortage of good quality, affordable housing. The housing that does exist offers no rehabilitation. The auditor notes the inadequate conditions of residential care homes because the support services are inadequate or often nonexistent. The auditor notes that some operators are permitted to continue operating despite failing to comply with licensing conditions because inspectors are aware of the shortage of alternatives.

The auditor notes as well that supportive housing units, workshops and clinics have received increased funding, but there continues to be a shortage of services across the province.

In this morning’s Toronto Star is a letter from Paul Sherman who is the chairman of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addictions Programs. This is a new federation. It is an umbrella group of a large number of agencies that deliver all the community mental health programming in Ontario.

Mr. Sherman says: “Despite a long-standing government policy of deinstitutionalization, the funding commitment to establish a mental health service system has not been evident. Currently, community mental health receives six per cent of the total mental health budget and less than six tenths of one per cent of the total health budget.”

This for a set of conditions and mental health problems that in fact are responsible for a very high percentage of total admissions to hospital which will, statistics show, strike over 12 per cent of the population; that is, one in every eight people will suffer mental health problems of sufficient severity to require hospitalization.

I want to remind members of the Legislature of a letter which they received earlier this week. It is a letter from Howard Richardson, the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario division, and it recalls to members’ attention the survey that CMHA did during the election period and the results it received from all the members of the Legislature.

Mr. Richardson says: “One survey question will be of interest to you in relation to the recently introduced Bill 50,

An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services. The survey question asked if respondents supported CMHA’s call for a community mental health act which would legislate a minimum level and range of local and regional community mental health programs. Overall, 85 per cent of the respondents supported such legislation and of the elected members responding, 71 per cent were in support. Given this clear indication of support for such an initiative, we urge you to support Bill 50 at second reading on December 17, 1987.”

I think it is particularly timely for the Legislature to adopt this bill on second reading, send it to committee, where we can have hearings and where committee members can hear from consumer groups, advocates and people who deliver community mental health services, because the Ministry of Health has announced a working group on community mental health services. The working group, it says here on October 13, wants to define what constitutes a comprehensive community mental health system. In fact, the first substantive

section of Bill 50 defines comprehensive principles and the second substantive

section defines comprehensive services that should make up a system of community mental health.

I understand that the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario are committed to doubling the size of the community mental health program budget. That is something I welcome. I am concerned, however, that the doubling is going to take place over three years and that some of the additional money will have to go to improving the salary levels of those who deliver community mental health services because they are being remunerated at levels which are far less than those in the public psychiatric hospital sector. Of course, the community mental health sector keeps losing people to the government sector.

A significant amount of the rest of the money will go to dealing with the waiting lists for community mental health programs that now exist.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and listen to what other members of the Legislature may have to say.

Mr. Eves: As Health critic, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of our party and address this proposed bill, which we will be supporting.

Bill 50, defines the types of programs which should be available to persons seeking mental health services and, specifically, the bill legislates individualized programs which are set up with the help of the client, programs which will allow the client to attain as much self-sufficiency as is possible, annual reviews of individualized programs, and programs designed to meet the needs of clients in defined geographic areas which I think is a very important aspect of the legislation.

Co-ordination of services in a geographic area will be delegated to a specific authority. The services should be responsive to the changing needs of the client group and the bill goes on to say that consultation with conflict-free advocacy groups should take place to ensure responsiveness. The delegated specific authority must provide the following programs: housing, life skills training, medical and psychiatric services, co-ordination of programs and, as I have said, advocacy services.

During the recent 1987 provincial election campaign, the Canadian Mental Health Association surveyed all candidates regarding community mental health services. In a September 4, 1987, press release, the association said that all three parties supported its call for a community mental health act. The government party election promise provides for an increase of $81.7 million for mental health programs over the next three years.

As my colleague has already alluded, although that would double the number of people being served by community mental health programs across the province, it is also going to take three years to accomplish. No mention was made of potential legislation to ensure that this was done.

This year, the province is spending $65.3 million on community mental health programs, but only 13.9 per cent of the mental health branch budget is represented by those programs, and $293 million is being spent on psychiatric services. Four per cent of the total ministry budget for 1987-88 is for the mental health branch and 41 per cent of the mental health budget is targeted for the community mental health branch.

The community mental health services program was established in Ontario over a decade ago. Mental illness is the country’s fourth most common reason for ending up in hospital. One in six people will be treated for a mental illness during their lives and one in eight will be put in hospital for that illness. Thirty per cent of the 20,000 to 40,000 homeless Canadians suffer from some form of mental illness.

The community mental health programs in the province this year number 303. That is up from 206 just four years ago. On May 4, 1987, the former Minister of Health, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), told the community mental health programs federation that the ministry priority for the time being will be to enhance and monitor the programs that already exist. We think we need much more than that. We think we need an expansion of community health programs throughout Ontario.

A very good example is my own riding of Parry Sound, where there is really no community mental health program per se. Currently, we have a group of concerned citizens and residents in the riding working in concert and with the co-operation of all the hospitals in the district of Parry Sound, trying to set up some sort of community mental health service program. Legislation such as this would certainly enhance that effort in many geographic areas of the province and, in particular, in northern Ontario.

The Canadian Mental Health Association provides 40 per cent of the community mental health programs in Ontario. They believe that what is needed is a comprehensive program, as I have said, of community mental health services in order to keep the psychiatrically disabled either out of expensive hospital beds or from having to live in our streets in intolerable conditions.

Community mental health services are definitely not distributed equally across Ontario. In Metropolitan Toronto, the majority of programs are located in the downtown area and are not easily accessible to most Metro Toronto residents. There are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people living on the streets of Metro who have psychiatric disabilities. Four years ago, a patient discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre had 15 or 16 housing choices. Today, only one or two choices exist. In 19B3, 183 patients of the Queen Street centre stayed three months or longer.

This year, that figure is 224, or 40 per cent higher. Of those 224 patients, 87 could be released from the hospital if there was somewhere they could be sent where they would receive a fair degree of supervision, but no such place exists.

During 1985, the Progressive Conservative government had a contract in northeastern Ontario with Dr. Covington to set up psychiatric clinics in northeastern Ontario. When the Liberal Party took over the government of Ontario, it chose not to honour the contract with Dr. Covington and the doctor has since left the province. There has been no work done on clinical services since that time, even though the need was definitely identified by the previous government.

Late in 1984, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), as Minister of Health, appointed a steering committee of representatives from northeastern Ontario to establish a model and practical implementation strategy for mental health programs in northeastern Ontario. That report was released on September 30, 1986. The proposed model closely resembles the model proposed in the bill of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

The report cited the following as the main problems with the present system of mental health services in northeastern Ontario: services are centred in large communities, there is a distinct lack of francophone services, there is a lack of co-ordination with existing services, there is a lack of communication among existing services, a lack of professionals and training programs, a lack of programs and services for ex-psychiatric patients, for sure a lack of services in remote areas of the province, distance, isolation in geography of areas and generally disappointment with the present regional services in northeastern Ontario and the province of Ontario.

Services for native persons is another aspect of community mental health. The Brant District Health Council has given top priority to the lack of mental health services on the Six Nations Indian reserve for the last three years. The ministry has been ignoring the call for a mental health program for the reserve. The director of the community health centre there says: “The province does not consider the mental health of Indians to be its problem. It thinks it is a federal problem.”

Likewise, services for rural Ontario are sadly lacking. One in three Ontario fatalities is a suicide. Eighty-eight per cent of farm families are suffering from stress-related problems. The provincial farmers in transition program includes a 24-hour distress hotline and family farm advisers who review farm operations and help farmers find alternatives to new life. However, farmers such as those in the Grey-Bruce area, the first area to be hard hit when farm financial crises came in the early 1980s, do not trust the government-run transition program.

I think I have helped to highlight a few of the shortcomings of community mental health services across the province at large in my remarks in the preceding nine and a half minutes. Suffice it to say that our party, and I as an individual, will definitely be supporting Bill 50. We think it is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. It addresses the concerns of the steering committee that was established, as I said, by the member for Cochrane South when he was the Minister of Health and that report which came out in 1986. We think it is certainly a step in the right direction and I will be supporting the bill.

Mr. Keyes: I am pleased to enter into this particular debate on Bill 50 for several reasons, particularly because Bill 50 does embody many of the principles that I am sure everyone in this House cannot help but support. That is the principle of sound mental health. I happen to be one of those persons who belongs to a group that believes one’s physical condition is, to perhaps 90 per cent, a factor of one’s mental condition. Therefore, if we are to promote a healthy lifestyle, it certainly must have in it a major component of sound mental health.

However, I will not be supporting the bill this morning because of the fact that it does have several deficiencies. I want to explain clearly that the principle of it is appropriate to support and we believe --

Mr. Harris: We might support your amendments.

Mr. Keyes: I did not believe this morning, in the time that we have, we would gain that much by going through all the amendments, although there could be many which perhaps could make it more appropriate to be used. I feel that the bill at the moment is inappropriate and I will try to show briefly some of the deficiencies in the bill and also to talk a little more positively about some of the programs we have raised. I hope I may find time in eight minutes to refer to some of the points raised by the two previous speakers.

Basically, as we know, this draft legislation that we have is pretty well the same as was introduced during the discussions on Bill 190, which was ruled out of order at that time. We know there are a number of community groups that are proposing similar legislation and we have suggestions from the Ontario division of the Canadian Mental Health Association and the community mental health program federation. I know that all worthy MPPs in this House have been approached, I am sure, by representatives of both those groups, either in person in their constituency offices or through letter writing.

We, as a government, are very much aware of the concern of Ontarians for this subject of sound mental health and a mental health philosophy and program across the province. That is why, in September of 1987, shortly after she was appointed, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) appointed Robert Graham to chair this provincial community mental health committee which is to develop the components for a very comprehensive model community mental health delivery system and also to provide advice to the minister. We have given Mr. Graham a very, very short time frame, as the members well know.

In the news release of October 13 referred to, which set out some of the purposes of the working group, I might just refer back to a paragraph: “The working group will develop a framework that will assist local district health councils in setting priorities and co-ordinating community mental health programs. This will help ensure that recently announced funding for community mental health will be allocated in an effective and efficient manner.”

On August 28 the Premier (Mr. Peterson) did announce that there would be doubling of the client capacity. It was not specifically a statement of a doubling of funding, it was a doubling of client capacity over the next three years, with the annual expenditure of $130 million by that time. I think it is important that we address ourselves to the fact that it is a doubling of client capacity which is the significant part of that announcement.

I would also like to mention a news release yesterday from Mr. Graham on the work that he has been carrying out. The working group will hold its next public meeting tomorrow in Guelph and we are sure that those persons from Guelph and area will come to make their views known to this committee.

Members may not be aware that the group held a meeting in Thunder Bay on December 4; it held one in Cornwall on December 11 and after the one tomorrow it still has four more. I urge all members to do their utmost to be sure that people attend and have their views known, both those of committees and other organized groups and individuals. The group will be in Metro Toronto on January 11, in Chatham on January 15, in Oshawa on January 22 and in Sudbury on January 29. I urge all members to be sure to become involved and invite all their citizenry to do likewise.

It is also significant to note that this whole idea of consultation with the public again just characterizes what we have been doing in this government in order to try to get the input from the populace of Ontario on issues that are of dire concern to each and every one of us.

I said I wanted to touch just briefly on the issue of deficiencies. I should talk about the fact that really what is being addressed in this legislation, but is not entirely clear, has a lot to do with the payment of services relating to the care and treatment of an individual in a facility. It appears that this would tend to set out legislation that suggests a specific amount of funding for the community mental health branch as well as OHIP claims for family physicians and psychiatrists.

There is a deficiency in the

definitions. If we are going to define “minister,” as we have done in part of the bill, then we should get into defining such other things as “patient,” “disorder,” “facility,” “clinician” and “director,” because without these descriptions and clear

definitions it is not totally clear what the purpose of this act would be.

Under the

section on components, there seems to be an implication for the community mental health program in relationship to the current nonmedical focus, and we are trying to do a great deal of focusing within the ministry on the nonmedical aspect of it.

I believe we should touch briefly, for a moment, on some of the programs and just think again of what the community mental health branch of our ministry is all about, and I quote:

“Community-based mental health services are intended to replace inpatient treatment with outpatient services wherever possible, reintegrate discharged patients into the community environment, locate mental health treatment and rehabilitation services as close to the homes of clients as possible and increase the range of choices of interventions or services available.”

I would love to provide members a litany of the number of programs: 396 community-based programs are now in existence and received some $95 million in funding in 1987-88. There are volunteer programs, supportive housing programs -- which I will touch on very briefly -- co-ordination programs, psychogeriatric, rehabilitation, self-help treatment, and particularly alcohol and drug addiction programs; all of which have been increasing in funding. In fact, since 1981 in drug and alcohol dependency alone the funding has increased by over 200 per cent, going from $21 million to currently $95 million a year.

In the matter of supportive housing, which seems to be an issue that is particularly pressing with everyone, the work between the Ministry of Housing, as the lead ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and our own ministry has been quite significant. In 1982-83, under a former administration, there were only 280 beds in this category and in 1987-88 we have 1,348 beds. I am not sure where my honourable friend opposite got his figures, which seem to differ slightly from mine, but my information suggests that is what we have.

These are all programs that have been designed and developed by community agencies and institutions in response to the locally identified needs and resources, and we plan to have considerably more, because within our ministry, we are currently undertaking a review to see exactly where we need to include more supportive housing. There is a working group that includes the Supportive Housing Coalition of Metropolitan Toronto, the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Alternative Housing Committee, the community mental health program and supportive housing program operators. We believe that we are on the right track in order to provide the appropriate type of funding.

May I just simply say also to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), who is not in the House now, that in the matter of francophone services I can again give a long litany of what is happening, but I believe the government has been working very diligently to increase in a large number of areas, actually as outlined in the bill, things we are doing to improve the status of those in need.

I simply say yes, I can support the principle of Bill 50, a sound mental health program in Ontario, and I believe we have such and are working towards that end; but it is inappropriate to bring forth the bill at this time. It is far better to integrate the whole role of sound community mental health programs into an overall community health program, which is the direction that this ministry is taking under the current minister.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this very crucial issue on behalf of all Ontario’s citizens.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One might have expected an evolution of some sort in the trend towards conservatism by this government, but a metamorphosis has taken place. The definition of metamorphosis, of course, as members know, is that there is a sudden and dramatic change in a being so its original identity is no longer recognizable. That is a much more appropriate term now, metamorphosis, for the conservatism that is now reigning on the other side of this House.

To listen to the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Health in a Liberal reform government today is only to listen to a Conservative parliamentary assistant many years past. It is just incomprehensible to me how he has changed. If this can be done in the first three months of a majority government, God knows what the next three to four years are going to mean for the people of Ontario as Bill Davis comes back to reign supreme once more.

I regret that I did not use my powers as chairman of the standing committee on social development in the last House less judiciously and less according to the orders than I was required to do. When it was brought to my attention during those hearings that an amendment to mental health legislation that was before us was going to be proposed which embodied the very things the member for Riverdale has brought forward today, I had to rule it out of order.

I should add that Liberals on that committee all thought the points within this Community Mental Health Services Act would be appropriate but should not be raised at committee. Now we find it is not appropriate to raise them today either in private members’ legislation, even though the principle is supported. Of course, that is all he is being asked to support at second reading, I remind the parliamentary assistant, who perhaps as a past minister has forgotten these things. All he is required to do in second reading is to support a principle.

I am glad to hear the parliamentary assistant does support the principle and therefore he should support the bill. If he wishes it changed in any way and amended in terms of its detail, then that can be done in committee; that is the appropriate thing to do. But if he supports the principle, he should not vote against it, as I gather the government is intent upon doing.

With hindsight, I really do wish I had made that in order, because I hear today that the Conservative Party is supporting the member for Riverdale’s motion, and therefore we could have had this as part of the legislation of the province if I had taken a slightly stronger hand perhaps and twisted the rules mildly to suit the purposes of the opposition in those days. Now, instead, we will be left with the same long, drawn-out, evolutionary process towards adequate mental health in the community that the Tories initiated so many years ago.

I am sure the member for Riverdale has already mentioned this, but when you hear the litany of supposed programs that are out there to meet the need that the parliamentary assistant has just enunciated, and you contrast that with the budgetary fact that 94 per cent of the money of the ministry going into mental health goes into institutional care and only six per cent goes into community care, I think you can see the lie that is put to that litany.

I see in the gallery today people from the community mental health field, advocates for schizophrenics and others who understand how important it is to state as a principle of government that community mental health is as important as, if not more important than, institutionalized care.

What is fundamentally important about what the member for Riverdale is trying to do is he is saying that by bringing forward

an act to provide community mental health services we would finally be giving that part of mental health programming the status that it deserves and be saying that the budgetary consequences should follow, that the step-by-step conservative approach that is being perpetuated by this government to adding additional programs here or there, but within a framework that has overall dependence on institutional care, has got to end and that the shift towards real community-centred services in an organized fashion with guaranteed rights for the patients involved is vital.

Nowhere in our legislation -- I say this to any new members who want to look at the Mental Health Act in Ontario today -- does it say that the patients should be involved in the decision-making around the services that are provided to them, a magnificent principle that is embodied in this legislation and vital to the good operation of community services.

Anybody who has been involved in mental health services in this province over the last number of years will know that one of the reasons for failure that we have presently, besides the hodgepodge of programs and the lack of co-ordination, is the fact that once somebody comes out of a mental institution he or she has certain rights which then do not allow him or her to be coerced into a program, and yet the kinds of programs we have established are those that do not involve the person in making decisions around his own welfare so that he will feel open about going in and not threatened.

It is vital to understand the attitude of many mental health patients about the professions that deal with them and that the dangers of incarceration are always there for them, and that if you are going to have a good community services program available for them, the need for those people to make decisions with professionals about the programs they are involved with is just vital.

There are so many other principles in this legislation which has been brought forward that are not only commendable but absolutely necessary in terms of basically a bill of rights for mental health patients in the community that I find it absolutely incredible that the parliamentary assistant would not want us to pass this legislation in principle today, have it go out to a committee of the Legislature, which could then benefit by any other initiatives the government is taking in terms of investigations of this matter and offer some chance to the 95 souls on the other side who have little or nothing to do, if they are not parliamentary assistants or ministers, to actually have an effect on the development of coherent community mental health services in Ontario.

When we think today of what happens to people who are mentally ill in our society and how difficult it is to get them the programs they need -- if we think of some of the cases that now come into the riding offices of new members or will certainly come into their offices over the next number of years, such as families coming in in crisis because they cannot find proper placement and the lack of meaningful supportive housing -- it is incredible again that the minister would talk as if the initiatives that have been taken in terms of supportive housing are anywhere near adequate for what we need.

I gather we may get an announcement today which is going to indicate that singles are finally going to be admitted into Ontario Housing, something that has been kept from them and from a whole series of mentally ill people who have fallen apart from their families because of the nature of their illness and have had no place even to rest their heads, let alone to get consistent programming.

What this act does essentially is to say to the francophones in northern Ontario, who have been going to Quebec for services now for decades because they cannot get services here, and to the people in small communities, who basically have to see their loved ones shipped off to towns where there is a major psychiatric institution rather than being serviced in their own local community: “This act is

an act of empowerment for you. This is

an act that says your child, your brother, your sister or your mother has a chance to be dealt with in his or her own community in some coherent way and it is going to be an emphasis of government.”

I would just appeal to the members of the Liberal Party, who I gather are likely to follow the parliamentary assistant’s lead in this, to think twice about doing that and to understand that this is a very important matter for them to deal with, and to deal with strongly, in committee, to amend in any way they see fit after we have more public deputations on the matter and to bring in all the information that is available.

But to sit down today and vote against this on principle will be a statement that they do not wish to be Liberal reformers, that they wish to be Conservatives in Liberal clothing only and that they do not believe in basic and total reform of the mental health programs in our province. I encourage them to support the member for Riverdale’s Bill 50.

Mr. Harris: I would like to read several facts into the record.

Mental illness is the country’s fourth most common reason for ending up in the hospital.

One in six people will be treated for mental illness during their lives. If members divide 95 by six, it might mean something to them.

One in eight will be put in hospital for that illness. If members divide 95 by eight, that might mean something to them.

Thirty per cent of the 20,000 to 40,000 homeless Canadians suffer from mental illness.

One in three Ontario fatalities is a suicide.

After listening to those facts, which I think have been accepted by all Ontarians -- I have not heard them refuted -- four per cent of the total ministry budget for 1987-88 is for the mental health branch, and of that, less than half is targeted for the community mental health branch. Those are the facts of what is occurring in Ontario today and those are the facts, I believe, and the context in which we ought to put the bill that is before us.

I want to agree and disagree with the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). I want to agree with the member strongly on his plea to the 94 members of the Liberal caucus that what we are talking about here is a principle. We are talking about second reading, and second reading is agreement in principle that there is a problem; agreement in principle that this bill, or some amended form of this bill, will go a long way towards solving the problem.

I feel sorry for the parliamentary assistant because he agrees with the principle and yet he has obviously been told by somebody, whether it is his minister or the Premier: “Look, it is a good principle, it is something that has to be looked at; but let us not allow this to pass and get into committee. Maybe our timetable will be disrupted. Let us not get a full and open look at it.”

I do not think, quite sincerely, that the parliamentary assistant is altogether comfortable with that, but I understand how the system works and I am beginning to understand how the system works in the Liberal Party, and for that reason I am not entirely laying blame on the parliamentary assistant; but he is in a very difficult position.

None the less, the rest of the members are not in that position. The parliamentary assistant himself has said, “I agree with the principle,” and that is all we are asking the members’ support for today.

If members agree in principle with the facts; if they agree in principle that there is a problem; if they agree in principle that we ought to examine this problem, we ought to get it out to committee, we ought to hear from those people in our community in the community mental health field; that we ought to get more information, we ought to be open about this, we ought to play a meaningful role as legislators -- after having heard that, they are free to reject the bill then if they want, if that is what the information and the facts find and if that is what they tell them; or they can amend this bill in any form they see fit that still agrees with the principle that the parliamentary assistant agrees with, and that is the principle of this bill.

I could read all of the facts into the record and more -- the member for Parry Sound has done some of that; other members have done some of that -- but if I do anything in this debate I would impress upon members what second reading means, what they are being asked to do here and what, if they support this bill in principle, will be the net effect. It is all positive. It is all good. It is all receiving more information. There is no finality to any single clause in this bill; there is no finality to the bill. It is saying there is a problem, we would like to get more information.

If for some reason members feel that causes them some difficulty with any type of decision that was made in caucus, maybe they should all absent themselves. At least that way, in conscience they will say: “Well, I did not vote against it; it is going to go forward. The right thing will happen with this particular piece of legislation.” That is an option that, if members cannot bring themselves to support this in principle, they should consider. I think they should also consider their vote very heavily if they should decide to vote against this.

Members should consider the message that vote is sending back to their constituents. They should consider the message that vote is sending back to all those who are concerned about mental health.

I said I wanted to disagree as well with the member for Scarborough West. The member for Scarborough West noted two or three times in his remarks that the Conservative approach is to piecemeal along. Maybe in his experience that is how he has sensed, over some period of time, the Conservative approach.

I represent the riding of Nipissing. We have the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital located in my riding. I was one of those who fought hard for and encouraged the mental health needs study that was carried out under the former government. You do not, as a government, commit to a major study like that -- and we all knew: the minister knew, the Premier knew, the cabinet knew when that was approved, or had a good inkling of, what some of the findings were going to be -- without realizing that you are going to have to act and you are going to have to fund it.

In my discussions with the ministers of the day -- two of them -- and in my discussions with my caucus of the day and with those who were involved, they were prepared to act and they took that step, at least for northeastern Ontario which concerned me.

That committee was chaired by Peter Birnie, a chartered accountant from North Bay, with very able representation from all over northeastern Ontario. Briefly, some of the things the report brought forward were: services are centred in large communities, there is a lack of francophone services, a lack of co-ordination of existing services, a lack of communication among existing services and a lack of professionals and training programs.

That should have been addressed. When you commission a study like that, when that report comes in -- the final report came in after the Liberals had taken over as the government and nothing, absolutely nothing, has happened in that regard.

There has been a joint hospital proposal before this government that involves a Catholic hospital in North Bay, an acute care hospital, a civic hospital and the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital. As long as that is not proceeding the excuse is, “We do not know what is happening there, so we do not know where we should be going in the community mental health field.”

Recommendations also came out that there should be substantial investment into capital facilities and into operating facilities throughout all of northeastern Ontario. That has been sat on for the past two years as well.

So I disagree with the member for Scarborough West that what we are seeing is a Conservative approach. I think it is a unique one that only this Liberal Party can take credit for. It is not the approach that I saw in my years when we were in government and I saw what was happening.

But where I do agree with him, and I really think the most important message I can give to the members is: think about the signal we are sending out today when we vote on this particular piece of legislation.

Miss Nicholas: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and put my comments forward on Bill 50,

An Act to provide for Community Mental Health Services. It was not too long ago that we would not speak about mental health, even at local parties or in our own homes, and it is quite exciting to see us speak about it here in the House.

That is because mental health can affect anyone at any time. It can affect all ages. It can affect people from different financial backgrounds, different social backgrounds, different educational backgrounds. It does not pinpoint any particular group of people. Everybody can have mental illness at some time in his life. I think it is time we got it out of the closet, that we did not whisper about our friend who has mental illness, or our parents or grandparents who have Alzheimer’s. I am glad it is becoming more acceptable socially to discuss mental illness and to try to do something about it, because until we start talking about it we are not going to do anything about it.

I am quite pleased to say that before coming to this House I was able to assist in getting funding for the Canadian Psychiatric Awareness Committee, which tried to get out to the public and make it aware that psychiatric problems and illnesses are commonplace in our society and that we should do something about them. Mental health problems cost society a great deal, and it is time that we try to do something about them to treat them effectively and to try to reintegrate people who have had mental illnesses back into society.

I have a little bit of a problem with this bill, in that we have been discussing today some things that it is lacking. It is lacking some discussion about involuntary admissions, because in my riding I have had some difficulty with people who have a mental illness, need treatment and are unwilling to submit to it. I think we should deal with that problem in this bill. I think we should deal with the confidentiality aspect of mental illness in this bill.

I think we should deal with guidelines and standards for various program models, such as housing program standards and vocational rehabilitation program standards, because I think it is important that, if we are going to have community-based services, they have standards and that they be treated effectively, efficiently and with the best health care possible outside of an institutional setting. It is important that we do that, that we have some control of our community-based services.

That is why I am interested to see that Robert Graham, in his committee, is looking to develop a comprehensive community health model for Ontario and is looking to set up guidelines for our community-based services.

Having said that, I would like very much to indicate my support for this bill and hope that the different aspects that are lacking will be discussed in committee. In my support I would like say that there is a need for institutional settings. They can give certain treatment and they can provide certain services that may not be available at the community level. But we are lacking sufficient space in the institutional setting, and there are not programs for reintegrating people into society after they have been treated for mental health problems.

That is where I think the community-based programs can provide the best services: that is, to reintegrate people back into society and to have special services for people with mental illness.

It is important that we reduce the frequency and duration of admissions to psychiatric facilities, provide treatment to the patient in the home and in the community setting and reduce the risk of mental disorders in high-risk groups. These programs often depend on volunteers, as many of our community-based services do, and we should encourage volunteers to continue to get involved in the process of community-based services, in addition to people who have been qualified to provide some of these treatments.

Rehabilitation programs which include vocational and social rehabilitation to prepare former psychiatric patients for employment placement are an important aspect of our community-based programs. I think it should be an emphasis to reintegrate people back into society and to find them a way of being employed and of contributing to society for many years to come. We need more services on a community basis, and I think we have to look to our friends and to people we know who have had mental illness in the past.

I remember a person, a friend of mine who was quite mature, and I was quite surprised when she was stricken with a mental health problem. This was a lady who could make a worthwhile contribution to society. There were no support services there for her other than institutionalization. I felt that there was a need for us to give her more than just a room for many years to come and no possible chance of her coming out and contributing to society again.

The Liberal government has given a consider-able amount of attention to this issue, and I hope it continues to grow. I was encouraged by the fact that there is a doubling of funding to the community mental health programs and to the alcohol and drug dependency programs.

I would like our thrust in this area continued, and I think the bill that is being proposed today, with some amendments at the committee level, I hope, will be something that would really encourage each of us to direct our minds to mental illness and to the different services that can be provided in the community, outside of institutionalization, and can really assist in the program and the process in reintegrating mental health patients back into society.

I support this bill today, I am very happy that it is something we can discuss today in this House and I hope that we continue to discuss it openly and make it something that is on the lips of many people in Ontario.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had not intended to speak on this bill but since there is some time, I would like to make a few comments.

In the Toronto Star of Monday night, there was an

article paying tribute to Jacques Tremblay, who is the key figure behind a number of innovative projects such as a courier business operated by former psychiatric patients, a low-income housing project for singles and a health clinic for street people.

He received recognition as being an outstanding individual in helping with the mental health problems we have in this province and I think we should pay tribute to him and to other people who do work of that nature.

I think one of the problems that we have with the mental health factor is that people live in fear. They have an extremely emotional problem in trying to resolve the fact that they do have a health problem and a health problem relating to the mind rather than to the body and they think it is something different, while the two should be equated in the same manner.

They have a fear of the way that they are being treated, they are not sure what is happening to them and they are under medication. It creates a problem. The biggest fear that they have is the fear of what happens when they are allowed to leave the institution and go out into the world. They need support, a tremendous amount of support.

The member for Riverdale has drafted Bill 50, which provides a lot of support services for these people. I can support this bill. In fact, I am very pleased to support it because it is the right direction we should be going. If amendments should be made, then have it sent to committee and we can work on it and come up with solutions that will best serve the needs of these individuals who have a tough time in life at the best of time.

Members ought to take the opportunity to visit some of these hospitals and homes where the people live and talk to them and realize the deep feeling they have about wanting to rejoin society and be a meaningful part of life. For some of them it is absolutely depressing, the feeling of hopelessness that they have. Surely it is incumbent upon all of us to provide whatever support services we can to bring them back into the mainstream of life and give them something they can look forward to, instead of living with that anxiety that they have.

Medication will help to some degree, but they need some support services and the member has set out some excellent examples of what we should be doing as members of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Riverdale reserved six minutes and that is all the time we have left.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how pleased I am that all members of the Legislature who have participated in the debate today have indicated support, at least in principle, for Bill 50; there appears to be three-party support, at least in part, for the principles enunciated in the Community Mental Health Services Act. I am hopeful that those sentiments will be reflected by the Legislature as a whole.

I particularly want to thank the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and reinforce her plea that we keep mental health and mental health issues on the agenda. In fact, that was the advice I gave in 1986 to the national conference of the Canadian Mental Health Association in Ottawa: that one of the things that people interested in mental health had to do was to get on the agenda.

We had an opportunity in the 33rd Parliament to discuss mental health issues on a number of occasions, in the estimates of the Ministry of Health and in the standing committee on social development when we were considering Bill 190.

One of the things that was so clear to those of us who had the pleasure of serving on the social development committee was that everybody involved in mental health understood the need for comprehensive community mental health programming and it was the plea of people from the Canadian Mental Health Association and the community mental health programs federation that we would not need to talk about forced treatment if we had the programs in place that would reduce or prevent the crises that resulted in people being hospitalized.

My sense is that the Legislature has an opportunity to send this bill to committee for review and for amendment and for the

definitions that the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) would like to see in the legislation. I say to the Legislature, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe very strongly that community mental health legislation is the wave of the future, that people with mental health problems are going to spend the vast majority of their time not in hospital but in the community.

I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is community mental health legislation in some jurisdictions in the world and it has made an incredible difference to the personal empowerment of the individual afflicted with a mental health problem and to the capacity of the community to care for and nurture those individuals among it who are afflicted with mental health problems.

I say to the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that I too would love to use this opportunity to give special kudos to Jacques Tremblay, the Toronto Star’s Man of the Year who was the originator of a vocational rehabilitation program in the riding of the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller), who is a member of the government and a well-respected member in the area of Simcoe.

I have had the opportunity to visit Abel Enterprises on a couple of occasions and I can tell the members that program deals with 42 severely disabled individuals, most of whom are diagnosed as chronic schizophrenic. They operate a workshop in which they create furniture which has been purchased by the city of Toronto for use in its singles housing projects, and they run a landscaping business. The number of person days spent in hospital by each of those individuals has been cut to about a tenth of what it had been.

This is a program that costs about $100,000 a year and it is funded by the community mental health programs branch and it is an excellent program. In an difficult economy in Norfolk county, this group has found an economic niche and the community has learned how to have the capacity to care for some people who otherwise would have been consigned to spend the rest of their lives in an institution.

I see in the public gallery June Beeby, executive director of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics. She leads a group of families and friends who deal daily with the consequences of the lack of community support and who do a very fine job at picking up where the government should be acting.

There are so many issues in mental health. We can reduce it to three fairly basic needs of people suffering mental health problems: a decent income, a decent housing situation and something meaningful to do. I believe Bill 50 would be a way to meet those three essential needs for all Ontario citizens who suffer from mental health problems.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. M. C. Ray has moved resolution 7.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reville has moved second reading of Bill 50.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, may I move that Bill 50 be sent to the standing committee on social development?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if I can accept a motion. However, standing order 71 states that it shall go to committee of the whole House unless a majority of the House agrees that it go to another committee. Does the House agree?

Agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. Philip: A very real problem is faced by a number of places of worship in Ontario. Subsection 3(3) of the Assessment Act provides an exemption from property taxes for places of worship. However, under clause 3(3)(

b) of the Assessment Act, those who rent their places of worship are not exempted from property taxes unless they rent from another church or religious organization.

Many new groups moving into existing communities find themselves unable to purchase property as a result of high land and construction costs as well as restrictive zoning bylaws. An example of this is the Westview Community Church located in my riding, which has a long-term lease on an industrial property.

Churches such as Westview Community Church can apply to municipalities for a grant equivalent to their municipal taxes. However, a major portion of the property taxes consists of the education component, but boards of education do not have the legislative authority to rebate the taxes.

Thus, those who own property for their place of worship are exempted from paying property taxes while those who rent are denied such treatment. I understand there are about 30 congregations in Metropolitan Toronto alone facing this kind of discrimination.

Yesterday the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) gave me an empathetic hearing on the matter. I now urge him to introduce appropriate amendments to the Assessment Act when the House reconvenes. In the name of justice, I ask that all places of worship be treated equally.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

They do not as yet appreciate the very antibusiness, interventionist nature of this government and its key players, people such as the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), a former New Democratic Party fund-raiser, who this week suggested the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the free trade deal. One of his concerns, as pointed out yesterday in the Toronto Star, the government organ, is that the agreement will restrict the government’s ability to intervene in the private sector and, among other things, force the government to compensate private companies before they can set up a public scheme in auto insurance.

That is one of this government’s concerns. What does that tell us about its long-range plans? Last week no less a personage than the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said, “I do not find the thought of publicly operated automobile insurance anathema.” That is right; the Deputy Premier does not mind the idea of state-run auto insurance.

The facts are there if one cares to look, and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has sounded the alarm. This government, with Bill 2, has begun the process that will ultimately take us into the socialist quagmire of state-run auto insurance. All Ontarians, small business people, taxi drivers, ordinary consumers, all of us will pay a very heavy price indeed.

ANNIE TAYLOR

Mr. Neumann: All members have heard of Alexander Graham Bell and Wayne Gretzky. Today, however, Brantford celebrates Annie Taylor Day.

Annie believes in and promotes the concept of high-quality, healthy living. Many years ago, she worked in what was the forerunner of the health food industry long before it became fashionable. Her healthy lifestyle includes refraining from smoking, moderation in consumption of alcohol and coffee, sensible eating habits, good exercise and a delightful sense of humour.

She and her husband for many years operated Taylor’s peanut butter factory. Annie remembers selling peanut butter for 25 cents a pound.

Annie’s only son, Glen Whitcomb Taylor, was killed in action as a Spitfire fighter pilot during the Second World War.

Annie Taylor was born on December 17, 1882, and this afternoon, along with her grandson, Cam Taylor, and all her friends at Versa-Care Centre of Brantford, she is celebrating her 105th birthday. As mayor, I attended her 100th birthday and found her to be perceptive, alert and an avid follower of public affairs.

I know Annie is watching right now; so on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and everyone here at Queen’s Park, I say happy birthday, Annie. Thank you for promoting your strategy for healthy living.

TORONTO CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Reville: The Globe and Mail says that 13 members of Toronto city council accepted at least $300,000 in campaign contributions over the past two years, with most of the money coming from the development community. The Globe seriously suggests that there is a link between the contributions and the council’s approval of extra density for major office and condominium projects in the downtown core.

What went through the mind of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) when he read the articles? Did he wonder what the councillors did or will do with the money? Did he worry that there might be conflicts of interest or influence-peddling? Was he concerned that there might be Income Tax Act and Criminal Code implications? Does he think development rights are for sale in Toronto?

The minister will not find the answers in his draft municipal election expenses legislation. He should launch an inquiry now.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and it concerns some, but not all, of the answers we are getting to questions put to various ministers of this government. A case in point is the question I put to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation on November 26. On that date, I asked the minister to provide the tendered prices for advertising contracts submitted by Camp Associates, Cossette Communication-Marketing, MacLaren Advertising and Vickers and Benson.

I want to make it clear that I did receive an answer to my inquiry on December 10, but that answer was somewhat less than satisfactory. The minister indicated to me that Vickers and Benson had been chosen through an open competition, co-ordinated with the Advertising Review Board. The minister went on to say that the selection process was based on capability and creative ability of presentations and was not a price bid. I am sure there was a price attached to each and every bid and I wanted, and still want, the minister to provide me with the dollar figures of the price tags attached to the four ads.

First, I am concerned that the minister is not conscious of the costs involved when he is spending the taxpayers’ money. Second, I am concerned about the quality of the answers we are receiving from some ministers of this government when we ask straightforward, logical and important questions that our constituents want and need the answers to.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mrs. LeBourdais: Apropos of the Christmas season and the tabling of the free trade agreement, I rise with these words and my apologies to the original author.

‘Twas the eve before free trade and all throughthe land, ministers scurried agreement in hand.

While Americans slept all snug in their beds,dreaming of trade deals they wrought from the feds.

All through Ontario there arose such a clatter from farmers, manufacturers and others that matter.

Then what to our wondering eyes did appearbut Brian Mulroney grinning ear to ear.

More rapid than eagles his ministers cameas he whistled and shouted and called them by name:

Now Reisman, now Burney, now Wilson, now Carney, our Prime Minister sure has a way with the blarney!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, when they met with an obstacle the sparks did fly.

So up to the House on the hill they all flew before Christmas recess, that whole darn crew.

And then in a twinkling we heard on the roof the prancing and dancing of the first minister’s hoof.

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, spouting that Canadians had nothing to dread.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to hiswork praying the polls would go up with a jerk.

And laying his fingers aside of his noseas though to snub all those who opposeforgetting our dreams as up the chimneythey rose.

But we heard him explain as he faded in sight“Please won’t you trust me and my majority’s might?”

Mr. Speaker: Do we have another poet?

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs. Grier: My statement is from

chapter 1 volume 1, of the sayings of the Honourable Jim Bradley.

April 28, 1986: “Ontario’s year-old air quality regulation is being totally revamped. My ministry will soon be issuing a green paper.”

October 21, 1986: “Tough new rules by the fall of next year.”

December 10, 1986: “Amendments soon.”

February 26, 1987: “The green paper will be available by April.”

November 30, 1987: “Today it is released. The new regulation will be phased in to cover the most hazardous 10,000 polluters within five years, the remaining within 10 years.”

Don’t hold your breath, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for poems and statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The federal Minister of Finance tabled a notice of ways and means motion in the House of Commons yesterday. The notice represents the federal government’s plan for reforming the federal corporate and personal income tax systems and contains a number of changes to the June white-paper proposals.

Members will recall that, as Treasurer, I made submissions to the Minister of Finance, along with the other treasurers, at the meetings that he has called, I believe, on two occasions since the white paper was issued. Some of the changes Mr. Wilson announced yesterday were the subject of interventions by this province and the other treasurers or other individuals.

The dependent child credit for families with three or more children has been increased. Implementation of the changes to the tax treatment of farmers has been delayed pending further review and consultation with the farming community.

Tax support for research and development in Canada has been modified. The June federal proposals would have limited the deduction of tax credits to half the federal tax payable. This limit is increased to 75 per cent in the final package. Those of you who attended the first ministers’ meeting at the Harbour Castle three weeks ago will recall that the Premier made a specific point of bringing that to the attention of the other premiers and the Prime Minister.

Home builders will be able immediately to deduct some of the financing costs associated with their land holdings. The write-off rates for film investment have been increased. Finally, the federal reform package includes a minimum tax on the capital of large banks.

I continue to be concerned with the proposed modifications to the tax depreciation rates for new investment in the manufacturing sector. As I indicated in my November report to the Legislature on the federal tax reform proposals, taxes are an important ingredient in the ability of Canadian businesses to compete in the international marketplace. This is particularly true for the manufacturing sector. It is important that tax reform not endanger Canada’s overall competitive position.

In addition, I am concerned that a higher federal tax on liquor and tobacco will reduce the province’s flexibility in these tax fields. Members will recall that over the years this direct sales tax on liquor and tobacco has been largely a provincial field, but since Mr. Wilson has become Minister of Finance, there have been successive large increases of the federal tax in that regard.

Interjection.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We share the tax field, but it is getting very crowded in the tent, if I might put it that way, once the camel got its snoot in there.

The June white-paper proposals were estimated to reduce the province’s income tax revenues by $90 million in the current fiscal year and $250 million in 1988-89, assuming Ontario parallels all of the federal proposals. The changes to the proposals announced yesterday will have only a modest impact on Ontario’s revenues over the next two years. I notice they did not lead the Minister of Finance to change his estimated deficit figures at all.

On the subject of a joint national sales tax, members may be aware that at the finance ministers’ conference last week, first, Mr. Wilson announced that food would be excluded from such a tax, and second, he acknowledged that the tax should not impose an additional burden on schools, universities and colleges, hospitals or local governments. I add in parentheses, there was no specific exclusion for the provincial governments themselves. Therefore, I remain concerned about the effect of the proposals on other areas of Ontario’s expenditures.

The 1988 Ontario budget will outline the province’s position on federal income tax reform. In establishing our position, I look forward to hearing the views of members and the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

Hon. Ms. Hošek: With my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of a $31.5-million package of co-ordinated initiatives designed to move homeless people into permanent accommodation. Central to this initiative, we will create new emergency housing to meet specific urgent needs; fund community initiatives to help homeless people find permanent housing, and increase the supply of permanent housing.

Across Ontario, community groups will be provided with resources to help more than 7,000 homeless people find accommodation. The Minister of Community and Social Services will have more to say shortly on the initiatives to address short-term shelter needs.

While we will be strengthening and improving the adequacy of our emergency base, the government is committed to moving homeless people into permanent housing solutions. In keeping with this principle, I would like to point out that $12.5 million allocated for short-term emergency shelter will be matched with equal funds for long-term permanent housing.

What is vital is that groups with good, creative ideas will be provided with the resources to develop and carry out effective programs for their communities. We will be providing funding for at least 10 or 15 such projects in different communities across the province. For example, $3.6 million is being allocated to Ecuhome, a nonprofit corporation, to establish 16 houses with permanent room-and-board-style accommodation for 128 people in Toronto. As well, we have been discussing other proposals with groups in Ottawa and northern Ontario. A further $8.9 million will be provided for groups in all regions of Ontario.

This initiative demonstrates that a strong partnership between government and community groups is the real solution to solving homelessness.

This is but a first step in combating homelessness. This government will continue to develop its long-term strategy to deal with the elements of the affordable housing challenge which faces us.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Through the integrated initiatives the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and I are announcing today, the Ontario government will help to move homeless people into permanent accommodation. To do that, we are helping the Homes First Society of Toronto to renovate an existing building. The residents of this hostel will then take

part in planning and developing the transition of the building into permanent housing.

Other initiatives will help to provide a community focus on how to address the permanent housing needs of homeless people.

We will support locally based groups to form access to permanent housing committees. This will allow communities across the province to develop projects and implement solutions to their housing problems.

The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is also launching a pilot program aimed at helping homeless people in greatest need in Metro Toronto. Eight outreach workers will help people whose problems make it difficult for them to use hostels for permanent housing.

While we try to move homeless people into permanent housing, the provincial government will also ensure communities have the resources to give them the emergency accommodation they need now.

The existing Metro Toronto Family Hostel, a former First World War veterans’ residence, is being replaced by a new hostel. Another project tackles the growing problem of street youth in downtown Toronto. With our assistance, Covenant House will build a new 100-bed hostel to replace the one now in use. In order to prevent a continued influx of young people into the downtown core, we will assist community groups to build three new youth hostels in East York, Scarborough and the region of Peel. Also, Mercury Youth Services will provide outreach services and practical help to young people in Toronto who are now in adult hostels.

These are initial steps only. The government of Ontario is currently working on a major long-term strategy. Today we are taking action on items that cannot wait.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I am making --

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not have the statement.

An hon. member: He is doing it for the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong).

Mr. Wildman: OK.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I am making a statement for the Minister of Energy. The minister is down with a bout of pneumonia and I am sure all honourable members would wish him a speedy recovery.

On his behalf, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that Ontario Hydro’s draft demand-supply planning strategy was received yesterday by the government. I ask your leave to table this report today.

Please note that the draft strategy will be provided to each member of the Legislature today, and I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that interested members of the public may obtain the report, on request, from Ontario Hydro’s communications department, beginning this afternoon. A volume of supplementary documents will be made available to members and to the public by Ontario Hydro in the near future.

The review of this draft strategy will be an important step in determining how best to meet Ontario’s future electricity demands. In establishing the government’s position to accept, reject or modify this strategy, we will be seeking the views of interested Ontarians. The review will begin in the new year and will include wide public participation and the involvement of the select committee on energy.

Further details on the review process will be announced early in 1988.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is a pleasure for me to address the members of the Legislature concerning the province’s legislation on freedom of information and protection of privacy, which is to be implemented on January 1, 1988. It is my firm belief that this has to be regarded as one of the most important pieces of legislation in this decade.

Here in Ontario, we are proud to say that open government is not just a dream. It can also no longer be regarded as just an ideal. With the introduction of freedom of information, there is now a promise and a commitment by the government of Ontario to allow public access to information held by the government.

By formally announcing the implementation of this act, ultimately, we are opening a new window on the government. Also of major importance, we are assuring the citizens of Ontario that their privacy is protected through privacy protection measures established in the legislation.

As the minister now responsible for this act, it will be my duty to make sure that the citizens of this province be given the opportunity and the legal right to access their own personal information held by the government.

I am tabling today copies of two directories -- on personal information and general records -- that will be available at the provincial bookstores as well as at public libraries and ministry and agency offices across Ontario. I trust that the information contained in both directories will contribute to a better understanding of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

In addition, I am pleased to announce that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, headed by Sidney Linden, is now able to assist members of the general public.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Members will know that our government has made a special commitment to the health needs of the women of this province and that we have been acting on that commitment with dispatch.

Today I am pleased to announce the establishment of a women’s health centre -- the second in this province -- at St. Joseph’s Health Centre in Toronto.

St. Joseph’s has a long history of service to Toronto’s ethnically and culturally diverse west end. The hospital has identified a large number of sole-support mothers, working women and older women who do not utilize health care services frequently and who would benefit from the health promotion emphasis at the new centre.

My ministry will provide a one-time capital grant of $200,000 and annual operating funds of $313,624 to establish the centre, which should be fully operational next September.

The hospital expects about 15,000 women annually will benefit from educational programs in nutrition, fitness, occupational health, dealing with violence and balancing work and family responsibilities. The centre will also offer a full range of prenatal and postnatal care and counsel-ling for women experiencing premenstrual syndrome, menopause and substance abuse.

The Sisters of St. Joseph have compiled an excellent record in maternal and child care services over the years. Their desire to establish a comprehensive women’s health centre reflects their special commitment to women.

I want to congratulate St. Joseph’s on its successful proposal and indicate once again that my ministry continues to welcome proposals from hospitals and community-based agencies and organizations for the provision of comprehensive women’s health services.

I will continue approving and announcing additional centres in the near future until a completely accessible and timely network of women’s health services is in place in this province.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to stand in this House yet again to bring more good news to the farmers of Ontario. Later this afternoon, I will be tabling for first reading of

An Act respecting the Protection of Farm Practices.

The proposed Farm Practices Protection Act confirms the view that agriculture is the primary land use within rural Ontario. Ontario farmers need the freedom and flexibility to carry on normal farm practices to produce food, activities which sometimes cause noise, odour and dust.

Ontario farmers have been concerned for some years that normal farming practices may increasingly result in complaints and court actions under the common law of nuisance. Under the act, a Farm Practices Protection Board will be established. Individuals who complain about odours, noise and dust from farm practices may ask the board to investigate. The board will hold hearings on odour, noise or dust complaints referred to it. The board will have the power to dismiss complaints about a normal farming practice or to issue an order to rectify the problem if it is not normal.

In formulating this proposed legislation, we have consulted with the public through public hearings held by the Advisory Committee on the Right to Farm. The proposed Farm Practices Protection Act has been developed in consultation with Ministry of the Environment to ensure that it is complementary to existing laws such as the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. Right to farm under this legislation does not mean the right to pollute. While farmers will be protected for normal practices, they will still be subject to land use control and environmental and health protection laws.

The act will deal with current and future nuisance incidents arising from existing conditions. The long-term solution is a strong agricultural planning policy to avoid incompatible and competing uses in agricultural areas. This is yet another Liberal promise fulfilled. I urge the members of the House to give their support in the speedy passage of this legislation to permit Ontario farmers the right to continue their business of farming using normal farming practices.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Later today I will be introducing legislation to reform the trucking regulations in Ontario. As members will be aware, the issue of regulatory reform has been with us a long time. I will be introducing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, amendments to the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act and a new bill, the Truck Transportation Act.

The three bills I will be introducing remain substantially the same as those which were introduced in the last parliament. There are some changes as a result of consultation lasting to the latest possible moment. A key component of reform is highway safety. Amendments to the Highway Traffic Act will allow us to more closely monitor the performance of commercial vehicle operators. The bill gives us the tools to apply more stringent sanctions against any operator who operates unsafely.

These bills will include all aspects of the National Safety Code, a code that distinguishes our reforms from those which have taken place in other countries. Safety on our highways will not be compromised. The main provision of the legislation, licensing on the basis of proving fitness to operate, remains virtually intact.

As most other Canadian jurisdictions are already well into similar reforms and as the federal government will be implementing reforms to extraprovincial trucking on January 1, 1988, I urge members to give this legislation their closest scrutiny in order that Ontario will be compatible.

RESPONSES

FEDERAL TAX REFORM PROPOSALS

Mr. Laughren: I want to respond to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on the federal tax reform. I think we all understand clearly that the federal government intends to reform some of its taxes before the federal election and add the sales taxes after the federal election. Those same people who will benefit slightly from the tax reform are the ones whom the Tories in Ottawa have taxed to the tune of $1,000 more per family since the last federal election.

This government is no better. Even after these tax reform proposals go through, individuals at the poverty level in Ontario will still be paying $400 a year in provincial income tax. The only difference between the Treasurer and Michael Wilson is that Michael Wilson admits he is a Tory.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Breaugh: I want to respond to the statements that were made today by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). It is unfortunate that this government has taken successful operating programs that offer reasonable accommodation and shelter for the homeless on a temporary and on a permanent basis and decimated those programs. It has replaced those