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

July 20, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DRUG BENEFITS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

DRUG BENEFITS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

AFTERNOON SITTING

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

TOURISM

FOOD INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FAMILY VIOLENCE

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PARALLEL GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES / SERVICES DE TRAITEMENT CORRECTIONNELS

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

RESPONSES

PARALLEL GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

SERVICES DE TRAITEMENT CORRECTIONNELS / CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

PARALLEL GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

RETIREMENT HOMES

RENT REGULATION

TOURISM

PLANT CLOSURES

SEWAGE TREATMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

ASSISTANCE FOR BLIND SENIOR CITIZENS

AIR QUALITY

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

LOTTERY PROFITS

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILLS 30 AND 31

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR L’ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION MUNICIPALE ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MUNICIPAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO HOME ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION ACT, 1989

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH DUMFRIES ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Kormos moved resolution 22:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately amend the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, SO 1986, and relevant regulations so that eligible persons who require hypodermic syringes for the self-administration of prescription drugs or medication are deemed when purchasing hypodermic syringes to be purchasing a drug or listed drug product; further, that a drug or listed drug product purchased by an eligible person, outside of the province of Ontario, be deemed to have been purchased in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The member is reminded that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for his windup speech.

Mr Kormos: This is really a relatively modest proposal. It is indeed in two parts. The two parts, although very much related, are in some respects very different.

It is my understanding that the only illness which requires the self-administration by syringe of medication is that of diabetes. Diabetes is a disease which has impacted or affected incredibly large numbers of Canadians and indeed people outside the country. But speaking in terms of Canada, we should be aware that approximately one million Canadians currently suffer from the disease diabetes, approximately 6.8 per cent of the adult population. In Ontario, it is estimated that some 540,000 people have diabetes. That includes both diagnosed and undiagnosed incidence of diabetes.

It is a disease which impacts on the young and the old, although it is conceded that one is more likely to acquire the disease as one ages. It is a disease which has some horrendous impact on the people who suffer from it. It is the leading cause of new cases of adult blindness. Diabetes accounts for approximately 30 per cent of new cases of kidney disease. Approximately 50 per cent of all nontraumatic amputations in Canada occur in people with diabetes. Heart disease is twice as common and often more fatal in people with diabetes than in the general population.

In Canada, we are told, approximately 50 per cent of people with diabetes have hypertension compared with only 20 per cent of persons without diabetes.

Diabetes can be and is life-threatening for those people who suffer from it. For as many as 20 per cent of those people who suffer from diabetes and, as I say, it is life-threatening -- the only resolution is a daily intake of insulin, and it is an intake which can only be administered by use of a hypodermic syringe. Diabetics who fall within that 20 per cent group are required to take anywhere from one to three or four injections daily, and it is the rare case who can ever expect to not have to self-administer insulin. Indeed it is not just a likelihood but an extreme probability that they will have to self-administer insulin for the rest of their lives. It is a matter of staying alive.

Under the existing Ontario drug benefit plan, as we know, seniors are eligible persons under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and have their medication compensated for. Persons who are on fixed incomes, persons who are in receipt of family benefits allowance or general welfare assistance are also the beneficiaries of the Ontario drug benefit plan.

So we are dealing with really a modest number of persons in the total scheme of things who would be eligible persons who would be similarly suffering from diabetes, but we are dealing with persons who obviously are recognized to be ill capable of affording the cost of their prescription drugs by virtue of being on family benefits allowance or general welfare assistance.

We are talking about senior citizens whose incomes, in all likelihood, are severely restricted. Many live on very, very modest incomes, people who, because of their circumstances, are recognized to be eligible for compensation -- in the instance of diabetics, for the cost of their insulin, but the essential tool to administer it, the hypodermic syringe, is not compensated for.

The cost of the individual syringe is, at first glance, relatively modest. The price of a syringe that a diabetic would be required to use is 25 cents a unit per syringe. But at the same time, we are talking about persons who are required to use one, two, three, four syringes a day on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, monthly, indeed on a yearly basis. We are talking about persons who can ill afford the increased financial burden that generates.

In the instance of a diabetic, the syringe is so thoroughly entwined with the drug itself, with the medication itself, that one cannot function without the other. It is impossible for that 20 per cent of diabetics who require injections of insulin to utilize the medication without utilizing a disposable syringe. I am sure it was but an oversight in the original drafting of the legislation in 1986 that resulted in syringes not being included as items for which there would be compensation.

There are 540,000 diabetics in Ontario, 20 per cent of them requiring the use of syringes, only a portion of those, of course, being within the class of eligible persons, that is to say, those people who would be normally eligible under the drug benefit plan. I am asking this House to endorse the proposal that these people who receive compensation for their purchase of medication also receive compensation for the purchase of the syringe that is essential to the medication.

The second aspect is somewhat broader, and that deals with the purchase of medication outside of the province. Currently, reimbursement for the cost of approved drugs prescribed for persons entitled to Ontario drug benefit is limited to those drugs obtained from an Ontario pharmacy or dispensary.

At first glance, that seems entirely appropriate and entirely logical. However, the instance was revealed to me of one Christina Green from Welland, a 73-year-old woman who travelled to New Brunswick in the latter part of 1988 to visit with her family. While there, she became ill and required medical attention. It was an illness that was unanticipated. She required hospitalization.

Part of the treatment that was required -- it was not optional; it was not foreseen -- was the use of prescribed medication. She purchased this medication immediately, as she should have, in New Brunswick; yet she was not entitled to compensation for that under the Ontario drug benefit plan.

That is a grossly unfair scenario, one which punishes Ms Green for a situation which is entirely unanticipated. Had she suffered from the same illness in Ontario, Ontario prescription drugs would have been provided to her under the drug benefit plan with no question.

In the instance of diabetics -- I am speaking, of course, of diabetics who will travel outside the province, on vacation or on business -- insulin must be refrigerated; it must be kept cooled. The life span of insulin that is not cooled, that is not refrigerated, is very brief.

Diabetics who found themselves outside of the province with their prescriptions, who were required to purchase insulin either to replace a spoiled bottle of insulin or to replenish a supply that had been depleted, would -- like Ms Green, who suffered an emergency illness -- be denied any coverage under the drug benefit plan, notwithstanding that had they been in Ontario, their home, that medication would have been provided for under the drug benefit plan -- assuming that they were indeed eligible persons, that is to say, senior citizens or persons on the Family Benefits Act or General Welfare Assistance Act.

It is in some respects the corollary of the first part of this motion, when one considers the dilemma and the unenviable status of diabetic persons, that diabetic persons are required to use a drug daily provided in liquid form which is injected, a drug that must be preserved in a cooling situation, a drug that would spoil otherwise. It is the corollary of considering their plight that they should be allowed to purchase drugs outside of the province if they are normally resident in Ontario.

It is expanded, though, when one considers that seniors should not be denied the opportunity to travel and should not be denied the opportunity to visit relatives or merely tour outside the province with the fear that if they are struck by an emergency medical situation, drugs that would be available to them in Ontario are denied them outside the province, although within the country.

Any concern about the amount of moneys paid could be resolved by a schedule, that is to say, compensation would be limited to amounts that would normally be paid out for the drug here in the province.

The Canadian Diabetes Association has indeed called upon this government to provide financial assistance for all diabetic residents of Ontario for their diabetic supplies. Presently, only senior citizens have their insulin and blood-testing strips covered through the Ontario drug benefit plan. Those under 65 have no government coverage. The cost of syringes, blood glucose monitors, strips, insulin and additional costs associated with the necessary diet amount to approximately $2,500 a year. This is an onerous expense for many persons here in Ontario.

When I comment that this motion is indeed but a modest proposal, it is asking that effect be given only in part to the request and recommendation of the Canadian Diabetes Association, that is, that the Ontario Drug Benefit Act as it currently stands be amended so that diabetics who require insulin, where that insulin is paid for under the plan, also have their syringes paid for under the plan at a modest cost, but one which is a significant hardship to those same persons.

Similarly, it is asking that diabetics or other persons requiring medication outside the province, when they are nominally resident in the province, be entitled to have compensation through the Ontario drug benefit plan as they would have were that drug purchased here in Ontario. As I say, any concern about increased prices could be dealt with by way of an Ontario

schedule that would limit the amount of compensation to what that particular medication would have cost here in Ontario.

I can tell members that seniors across this province would be oh so grateful for that modest concession to their interests and needs.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs E. J. Smith): Does the member wish to reserve the whole of his time for conclusion?

Mr Kormos: Yes, please.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about the resolution of my colleague from the riding of Welland-Thorold.

In simple terms, this resolution calls on the government to amend the Ontario Drug Benefit Act to enable eligible people who require hypodermic syringes for self-administration of prescription drugs or medications to have them considered as a drug or a listed drug product. As well, the resolution says that any drug or listed drug product purchased outside Ontario by eligible people be deemed to have been purchased within Ontario.

In other words, hypodermic syringes purchased by eligible people for self-administration of drugs or listed drug products and specific drugs purchased outside Ontario by eligible people should be covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

I want to make it clear that I support this resolution in principle, with certain reservations. I think the key word used in this resolution is the word “eligible.” We are talking about eligible people under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, such as senior citizens, welfare recipients and others on fixed or low incomes who simply cannot afford to purchase their medications, let alone the hypodermic syringes that may be required to administer this medication. We are not talking about providing clean hypodermic syringes free of charge to addicts or those who abuse drugs as a form of recreation.

We are all aware that many children and senior citizens require hypodermic syringes because they are diabetics and must inject themselves with insulin. There are also many others who must self-administer other forms of medication to keep healthy. I find it rather strange that many of the drugs or medications these people must self-administer through injections are covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary but the means for self-administration, in this case hypodermic syringes, is not.

In other words, the formulary provides certain drugs or medications to those who cannot afford them, but the means to administer these drugs or medications that many people also cannot afford to purchase are not covered. That simply does not make sense.

There are people who are eligible to have their drugs or medications covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary but only if these drugs or medications are purchased within the boundaries of this province. What happens if they are outside Ontario, for whatever reason, and the need for these drugs or medications arises? They have to rush back home to purchase the necessary drugs or medications to have them covered by the formulary; they must dig into their own pockets to buy these drugs or medications when they already know they cannot afford them, or they have to do without and jeopardize their health. None of these solutions is acceptable to me.

I think these eligible people should be permitted to purchase the drugs or medications that are eligible under the formulary outside Ontario and then be reimbursed once they return to Ontario, but only if they still reside in this province. This must not apply if they have moved to another jurisdiction. They must have resided in Ontario for at least a year to qualify.

From my comments I think the members can determine that I support the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold in principle. By including hypodermic syringes for the self-administration of eligible drugs or medications and by including the purchase of eligible drugs or medications outside Ontario, I realize it will lead to increased costs to the drug benefit plan. Therefore, before the act is amended in the fashion suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold, I recommend cleaning up the drug benefit plan, because we all know it is out of control.

The drug utilization report concluded that Ontarians consume more drugs and spend more on their health care budgets than any other society in the world. The average person covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan fills 23 prescriptions each year. That is almost one every two weeks. Evidence shows that increasing drug use, irresponsible prescribing and adverse reactions in patients taking several medications are creating a significant health problem and driving up the cost of the drug benefit plan. It has been estimated that 20 per cent of hospital admissions of geriatric patients are for adverse drug reactions or errors in drug dosage.

Another problem relates to the host of drugs being routinely prescribed that are not listed in the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. Many of these drugs are costly and have been proven to have therapeutic value, but special authorizations to prescribe these drugs can be obtained only for individuals covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan, such as senior citizens and people receiving social assistance. Between 1976 and 1983, there was a substantial increase in special authorizations for drugs, from 11,000 to 100,000.

I said earlier that the drug benefit plan is out of control. We can look to recent Ministry of Health statistics to see this. Ministry expenditures on the plan increased from $72 million in 1977-78 to $498 million in 1987-88. That is an increase of 591 per cent over that period, or an average increase of 21 per cent.

We can all see that the drug benefit plan is clearly out of control. It has resulted in over-medication for citizens and is costing taxpayers an excessive amount of money each year. That excessive amount continues to grow at an alarming rate with each passing year.

I have always maintained that each person in Ontario should be issued a so-called smart card, much like a plastic credit card, to make people aware of the cost of drugs, services or each visit to the doctor. Intervention must occur to curb misuse of the Ontario drug benefit plan and to reduce this excessive cost.

Far too many people take our health care system and the Ontario drug benefit plan for granted, and actually believe there are no costs attached to a stay in a hospital or a visit to the doctor or the prescription of drugs or medications. We have all come to expect too much from the system. We must develop a new attitude towards our health care system. Nothing is for free.

There must be changes, because just about everyone in Ontario uses the system. All of us are affected throughout our lives. Good health is vital to our wellbeing. All of us have the dual responsibility during our lifetimes to establish healthy lifestyles and avoid abuses of our health care delivery system.

Government must become more aware in looking for alternatives to reduce costs. The government and its bureaucracy must maintain and improve the quality of our health care delivery system within the framework of fiscal responsibility and common sense. There has to be another alternative other than unpopular tax increases. Remember, as I said earlier, nothing is free.

Ontario’s health care system is not cost-effective, which results in the grave danger that quality will decline if change does not occur.

I support the principle of this resolution from the member for Welland-Thorold, but I think there needs to be a great deal of work done on our health care delivery system and a major overhaul of the Ontario drug benefit plan. But I do not support it in so far as I believe the means of administration of drugs and medication covered by the Ontario drug benefit plan should also be covered, and those eligible for coverage of their drugs and medication should have the coverage extended beyond the borders of this province if the need should ever arise. But the government has to clean up the entire health care delivery system. There is a crying need for such action.

I think the most important part of this resolution is the syringes for the insulin that the diabetics need. This is an excellent resolution and has many good points. Our party will be supporting it and I would hope that everyone in this Legislature would support it, as I think it is a benefit to those people who can least afford it and it is those people who need this help.

Mr Keyes: May I first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on assuming a new chairmanship? It is the first occasion I have noticed in here. I am sure you will bring that same ironclad justice to it as you did in another portfolio.

This resolution is one of those issues I am very prepared to speak on, because it is a very worthy issue raised by the member and supported by another worthy member. I know the issue will gain a lot of sentiment among members of this House and among the community, particularly those persons who by necessity must use insulin and inject it by means of a syringe, and certainly from their families and friends.

But I do not consider that the method proposed by the honourable member for Welland-Thorold really is the appropriate way to look at this issue; that as laymen here we should be making a decision to revise the Ontario Drug Benefit Act. I consider that there are procedures in our Health ministry which will deal with it in a much more appropriate way. I want to go back and make some reference to some of the issues.

First, if we want to include new drugs or devices or anything like that, we turn not to the laymen but to the experts to determine and make recommendations to us. I refer, of course, to the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. This is an independent advisory group composed of specialists in medicine, pharmacy, pharmacology and epidemiology. That is the group outside of the ministry that makes recommendations to the government regarding the inclusion of any drug products in our ODB Formulary.

The committee always bases its recommendations on factors such as the results of drug testing, evaluation of technical and clinical documentation submitted by the manufacturers, and the inspection of manufacturing facilities. Therefore, when products are listed in the formulary and are dispensed in Ontario, eligible recipients can be assured of receiving quality medication; quality assurance is one of the things I will try to touch on later in my remarks. If we are to add new drugs or devices to the Ontario drug benefit plan, it should be done through the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.

I think also that we should first take a look at the Ontario drug benefit plan and its purpose. The Ontario drug benefit plan, as has been referred to by the member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean), now covers approximately 1.6 million people in this province -- virtually all of our Ontario residents who are over 65 and those residents under 65 receiving family benefits allowance, general welfare assistance, extended health care benefits, home care benefits or who are residents of a home for special care. Those people get certain prescribed products, including insulin, if they are eligible recipients.

But I think we should remember that since its inception, the Ontario drug benefit plan has been designed to be of somewhat limited assistance, both in terms of the people eligible and the benefits provided. There are many benefits and needs of people using medication that are not provided under ODB plan, such equipment as the syringes we were referring to, needles, rubbing alcohol, absorbent cotton, those necessary ancillary supplies that are not provided and never have been.

We would like to draw attention to the fact that the whole issue of syringes and their appropriateness to be included in one program or another of the government did receive a fairly considerable hearing some time ago. That was under the assistive devices program. The assistive devices program, as we are all aware, was established to contribute towards the cost of rehabilitative or specialized devices for those individuals who have a long-term functional disability.

As the program was set up, these devices were to support or replace a weakened or absent part of the body. At the time, the funding of syringes was considered but not approved, with the argument that this program was not funded in order to provide a financial contribution towards the purchase of devices which are used to administer medication. Again, we must remember that we are not talking only about medication for insulin: There are many other diseases treated by drugs which must be administered through a needle or syringe.

Accordingly, then, our assistive devices program has not paid for syringes used for medication, but where there is a financial burden in the acquisition of any medical aids or devices the Ministry of Community and Social Services may provide assistance under the program. If individuals are hit heavily by the financial constraints they should work through that ministry.

That brings me to the role of CDA Ontario; what it has requested of the government and what it has done. As members know, on 7 June the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) announced additional funding to CDA Ontario of $500,000. This was in response to the representation made by CDA Ontario so it could purchase the home blood glucose monitors, which is one of the major areas that has been brought to our attention. Our funding has increased, to the extent that $1.1 million will be spent this year.

CDA Ontario currently gives some financial support to more than 7,500 diabetics of all ages in all parts of the province, enabling them to purchase the equipment. Of them, some 3,072 were enrolled in the program for the first time last year, and this year it is expected that another 3,000 people will be enrolled. I think we have to acknowledge that the assistance the government is giving comes in an area where we are finding more and more people, as the member for Welland-Thorold has said, coming into the program, more of them being recognized.

The home glucose blood monitors is the area that will give them greatest assistance, which they have sought. There will be an increase of as many as 3,000 next year.

We should go back for a moment and look at the monitoring program, because I think the member made an error in his statement that should be corrected for the record. He said that no one under 65 was assisted. The program started four years ago and provided financial support to the diabetics who were 18 years of age and younger for the purchase of monitors and testing supplies. It started out with 260 clients, but in 1987-88 it included adults. CDA Ontario administers the program and provides advice on the use and maintenance of the equipment.

The home glucose monitor is perhaps one of the most expensive items in the insulin user’s lifetime, because it costs about $250. CDA Ontario pays 75 per cent, and the client the remaining 25 per cent. CDA also provides up to $500 per person for the test strips that are used. Once again, there are diabetics who, by reason of economic necessity and on the recommendation of their physician, can receive additional assistance in purchasing a monitor.

In closing, I look at the Lowy Inquiry into the Acquisition, Distribution, Dispensing and Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Medications, because that is the organization we have currently asked to have the responsibility for examining all aspects of the government’s role and influence in the prescription drug marketplace.

We respond quickly to their recommendations. In their second quarterly report, they recommended that we should be providing assistance to those persons with cystic fibrosis or thalassemia. Again, the reason was based on cost, because it recommended that a person with cystic fibrosis may have drug and drug-related therapy bills as high as $8,000 a year, and bills for persons with thalassemia may run as high as $25,000 a year.

We have responded to that on the recommendation of a professional group, the Lowy drug commission, of which the chairman of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee is a member. It is an ongoing commission from the standpoint of recommendations. We will be spending an estimated $5.1 million a year on the cystic fibrosis program.

I suggest that the government has reacted in the areas of greatest need. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution, based on the in-a-sense unprofessional recommendation here.

Mr Reville: I rise and support with great pleasure the resolution of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold. I want to tell the members of the Legislature that I am deeply disappointed by the reaction of the member for Kingston and The Islands.

First, he seeks to diminish the importance of the resolution by saying that this is an unprofessional piece of advice and goes into a fairly boring, bureaucratic description of the assistive devices program, the Ontario drug benefit plan and the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.

He describes the programs accurately enough from a bureaucratic point of view, but it is absolutely foolish of the member to suggest that the decision to provide syringes or not is a medical decision. That is preposterous. It is a political decision.

What any of the pharmacologists who serve with the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee will tell the minister, if she were to ask for their advice, which she occasionally does, is that you must administer insulin with a syringe and that you must do that between one and four times every single day of your life, for the rest of your life; that hypodermic needles cost about 25 cents each and that you will have to buy a new one every time you need an injection or you will be risking infection. That is the kind of advice that would be given by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee.

In fact, as the groups that work to support diabetics will say, diabetes is the only disease that absolutely requires medication to be administered by injection.

What we see is persons contemplating an expenditure of $1 a day, at the top end, every day for the rest of their lives, unless some medical advance happens between now and the end of their lives. There will be an increase, as the Premier (Mr Peterson) reminds us, in the cost of needles, as there is in the cost of milk and clearly, under this government, in the cost of car insurance.

The minister’s aide, the parliamentary assistant, points out that maybe this should not be done, because (

a) the professionals have not recommended it and (

b) the syringes are not the difficult part, not the major cost of blood glucose, monitoring being the major part. Again, that is a goofy kind of argument if you ask me. When one has diabetes, there is an array of paraphernalia that is required, as has already been described by other members in the debate. One of those pieces of equipment is a device to measure how your glucose is doing and whether or not your insulin is appropriately dealing with your illness.

It is good that there are ways to reduce the cost of glucose monitors for people. What the member for Welland-Thorold is indicating is that through the device, through the mechanism of the Ontario drug benefit plan, we could make life easier for diabetics by picking up the cost of the equipment they need to self-administer the drug they need.

It is clearly a political decision. Do we, who are charged with making these kinds of decisions, think that we could extend to our fellow citizens, some 540,000 of them, a benefit to improve their lives? The method that has been suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold is through the Ontario drug benefit plan under the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, so that those who are most in need, the elderly and those of very low income, would not have to shell out for their syringes.

They would not have to go on bended knee to their worker and say, “Could you give me some help with the purchase of this equipment that I need?” They would be entitled, as a legislated, mandated right, to have these administering devices that are absolutely essential.

The member for Kingston and The Islands also mentioned the Lowy inquiry, as though the Lowy inquiry would somehow provide some justification for the curious position that he has taken.

I should remind members of the Legislature that the Lowy inquiry was established by the government following the release of alarming information: that doctors’ prescribing practices were terrible; that many of the drugs listed in the Drug Benefit Formulary and on the special authorizations list were harmful, too expensive or of little therapeutic value; that seniors particularly were being overmedicated, both in the community and nursing homes, and that 20 per cent of all admissions of elderly persons to hospital were related to adverse drug reaction, a catastrophe that is costing this province $1 million every day -- $1 million every day.

Quite properly, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee had been pointing out to the government over a number of years that this was a problem of great concern to it, and regrettably the government did not listen. Outraged by the refusal of the government to listen to this advice, which of course the member for Kingston and The Islands is saying we should now listen to, even though they are not giving that advice, virtually everybody on the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee resigned, particularly the two previous chairmen.

Dr Lowy did indeed recommend that the state cover the costs of medications for those who suffer from cystic fibrosis and thalassemia, not on medical grounds, but on the grounds that the treatment that people were required to seek for those conditions was very expensive: $8,000 in the case of those with cystic fibrosis and up to $25,000 in the case of those with thalassemia.

Surely by the same logic one could say that suffering from diabetes is an expensive situation, an expensive human condition, up to $2,500 a year to cover the cost of administering and monitoring the insulin, and therefore it would be good public policy to protect those citizens of Ontario from the burden of carrying that cost themselves, particularly those who are least able to carry it.

Perhaps I should say in conclusion that, probably every morning, members of this Legislature have an opportunity to walk by the Banting and Best Institute, which is just down the street. I think that, on an emotional and historical basis, if nothing else, it would be appropriate for this province and this government to recognize that the device that you need to administer the drug that was invented down the street from here should be made available to people who cannot afford it at the cost of all of the citizens of Ontario. That seems to me to be a fitting tribute to the ingenuity of two of our citizens of this province.

Mr Elliot: I would like to commend the member for Welland-Thorold for a very good resolution as well. I would also like to commend him at the same time for framing the resolution in such a way, from an opposition point of view, that it is almost an ideal kind of resolution, in that the first half of it really tugs at the Liberal strings of my heart, but from the semicolon on, it makes it almost impossible, from a government point of view, to support.

As far as supplying the hypodermic syringes for people who require them in their medication is concerned, particularly those who are eligible, I think that idea has been expressed several times as being an extremely fine one, but at the semicolon the resolution goes on to say, “further, that a drug or listed drug product purchased by an eligible person, outside of the province of Ontario, be deemed to have been purchased in the province of Ontario.”

That is the kind of open-ended statement that a person on the government side has to take a look at, and the first thing you have to be very cognizant of there is the potential cost associated with such an open-ended statement.

I believe that because the Lowy inquiry is examining all aspects of the government’s role and influence in prescribing drugs in the marketplace and that because the Lowy inquiry’s final report is expected by the end of the year, really as far as the good part of the resolution is concerned, the timing of implementation of that particular aspect of the resolution would come after the professionals on that particular inquiry, or who report to that particular inquiry, have reported, have completed what they have to say and the Lowy inquiry has reported to the government on that.

In the interim, I think it should be noted that, for the purposes of people who might be listening to this who really need financial support where there is a financial burden in the acquisition of medical aids or devices, the Ministry of Community and Social Services may provide assistance under its programs. If any individual is in financial difficulty because of acquiring this kind of device, he should contact the local office of that particular ministry.

I have two or three concerns with respect to the purchase of drugs and related paraphernalia outside of Ontario. That particular part of the resolution is open-ended in two regards. It does not say whether it is outside of Ontario but in Canada or whether it is outside of Ontario, period, which means it is global. I think two or three things should be pointed out there.

First of all, Ontario drug benefit plan recipients who leave Ontario, for example, if they go on a holiday, at the present time can receive up to a 250-day supply of medication to take with them. In order to remain eligible for these benefits, they must reside in Ontario for at least four uninterrupted months in any one year. If the program paid for drugs filled outside Ontario, it would be very difficult to monitor resident eligibility. I really do not see how we could do that with the four-month residency involved, that particular kind of criterion.

As stated, the resolution also requested payment for drugs eligible for reimbursement under the Ontario drug benefit plan when dispensed outside Ontario. However, there is no assurance that the drugs dispensed outside of Canada have the same formulation as those approved for listing in Ontario. Furthermore, the reimbursement formula which would be used for assessing claims may differ from that actually paid by the recipient. Also, claims are not subject to audit because the pharmacies are outside Ontario’s jurisdiction.

If the intent of the resolution is to pay for all drugs dispensed outside Ontario, including those which are not benefits in Ontario, the lack of quality assurance might result in the program paying for drugs of questionable therapeutic efficiency. Also, some recipients might fill their prescriptions outside Ontario in order to circumvent decisions not to include certain drugs as benefits in Ontario, for example, expensive so-called miracle drugs which lack proof of safety and efficiency.

Another complication which may arise is the use of mail order pharmacies, which are common now in the United States.

I did not want to speak too long on this particular resolution, but I did want to indicate the one aspect of the resolution which I find very palatable and which really could be quite worth while. I think when the Lowy commission reports, one of the things it might very well be amenable to is the extension of the drug benefit plan to this particular aspect of medication. But because of the wording beyond the semicolon with respect to the giving of drugs outside of Ontario and outside of Canada, which I have already read into the record, I cannot support this resolution.

Mr Kormos: I thank the member for Simcoe East, I certainly thank my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville) and I thank the member for Halton North (Mr Elliot) for his sympathetic criticism of the resolution. Indeed, I appreciate the comments that were made by all members on this resolution.

I want to reiterate once again, and it has been said a couple of times, that diabetes is the only disease known to us which must be controlled by the use of syringes. Diabetics have no option. They want to stay alive.

Let’s look at the economic burden of the disease diabetes itself. Each year, patients with diabetes or complications spend some 24 million days in the hospital. A conservative estimate of total annual costs attributable to diabetes is $13.8 billion.

The full economic impact of the disease is even greater because additional medical expenses often are attributed to the specific complications of diabetes rather than to diabetes itself. For example, annual hospital costs for amputations related to diabetes exceed $350 million. Perinatal complications resulting from maternal diabetes usually require care in a neonatal intensive care nursery at a cost of some $10,000 a week. The annual cost to medicate for diabetes-related end-stage renal disease is more than $330 million, a figure that is expected to double in the next decade.

The Canadian Diabetes Association has indeed called for all persons with diabetes to be provided with syringes. That is not what this resolution proposes. I am well aware of the monitor for health program, a $1.1-million program administered by the Canadian Diabetes Association, which assists people in acquiring various mechanical devices, testing units and so on, so they can do self-administered tests for blood glucose levels and so on.

What we are talking about is appreciably a twofold resolution:

First, what this resolution proposes is that just as “eligible persons” -- because all this speaks of is those diabetics who are seniors and considered eligible persons for the purchase of medication or prescription drugs under the drug benefit plan, those persons on family benefits and welfare assistance -- are entitled to receive appropriate medication that is listed in the schedules and regulations to the drug benefit plan, they be entitled to receive payment for syringes like this which they have to use on a daily basis. They have no choice. Without the syringe to administer the insulin, they die.

We are talking about people with the unenviable and unpleasant prospect of having to use syringes like this one to four times a day for the rest of their lives -- not just for an intermediary period of time, but for the rest of their lives. We are talking about a drug benefit plan that provides for the medication, but, unless the syringe is provided as well, the medication is of no use whatsoever to and cannot be effectively used by the approximately 20 per cent of diabetics who require syringes like this.

I talked about the incredible social cost. Part of the incredible cost from the secondary and tertiary problems related to diabetes results from inappropriate medication. What I am also fearful of is that those persons least able to afford the financial burden this creates -- and I am speaking of those persons with diabetes -- without the benefit I am speaking of, might be inclined to use a syringe more than once and run the risk of secondary diseases that are associated with that. They might be inclined not to self-administer the insulin as regularly as required, and again, the secondary impact of that is not just an impact on that person but an impact on the community as a whole.

Second, the other half of the resolution addresses issues directly concerning persons with diabetes. As I indicated before, insulin has to be refrigerated. A diabetic person, a person with diabetes who travels, for whatever reason, either consumes the whole supply of insulin -- I can appreciate what was said. I have made inquiries and I understand that if the medication is in tablet form, sure, a 250-day supply can be provided, but a 250-day supply of insulin cannot be provided in advance unless refrigeration is available to the person who is required to use it on a daily basis.

That also begs the question of the dire straits Ms Green found herself in. That was the woman of whom I spoke earlier, the 73-year-old woman who travelled to New Brunswick at Christmas-time in 1988, who became ill, who did not expect to become ill, who was hospitalized, who was treated appropriately by doctors there and for whom part of the treatment was the prescription by a doctor of some medication, the total cost of which ended up being a couple of hundred dollars.

There is a senior citizen who is eligible under the drug benefit plan for payment for her cost of medication, who similarly should be eligible when she chooses to travel to New Brunswick and is struck down with an unanticipated illness.

The problems that are raised can be dealt with. I urge acceptance of the motion so that those problems can be addressed.

The Acting Speaker: The time allotted for this ballot item has expired.

Mr Cureatz, the member for Durham East, is recognized in order to introduce his motion.

Mr Cureatz: It is going to take me not quite half the hour I have to read it, but for all those in attendance, especially the students who are in the galleries, I will try to make it a little interesting for them on a dreary old Thursday morning.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Cureatz moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of a reliable supply of electricity to individuals in their homes and to the economy in general for job creation, industry, and commercial establishments, and recognizing that several studies and reports have shown Ontario Hydro does not have the capacity to supply forecasted demands of electricity for the year 2000, and that it will take at least eight years to approve and construct a new generating station, and that this government has known since 1986 it will need a new generation station to meet the demands of the mid- to-late-1990s; the government of Ontario, and in particular, the Minister of Energy, should direct Ontario Hydro to initiate any aspects of the process to establish a new generating station that can be approved in advance, such as the site selection process, with consideration that it could be a station using one or more sources of fuel to ensure Ontario Hydro meets its obligations to provide all Ontarians with a reliable supply of power in the next decade.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The member is reminded he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a windup speech.

Mr Cureatz: I do anticipate reserving some of my time for the opportunity of rebuttal. I see that the resolution was so wonderful our students are now leaving. It is somewhat disappointing in terms of what one is trying to accomplish.

Let me speak to whomever is watching on television. I do not think there are going to be too many people sitting around on Thursday morning -- unless maybe via satellite in northern Ontario, if it is raining and they do not feel like going fishing -- who are tuning me in thinking, “What’s going on at Queen’s Park?”

I have a funny feeling that late in the evening, as people with nothing better to do are turning the television dials, they may happen upon this very instant on the replay. As they say in television, “Don’t touch that dial,” because we have something interesting to talk to you about. It is electricity, boys and girls, and you should gather around the TV instead of the campfire, because do you know what makes that television work? Electricity, and we have some concerns in Ontario about electricity.

We could go on at great length. We are going, for the few moments we have, to refresh people’s memories about electrical production in Ontario. I have to refresh everyone’s memory, more importantly the people who are listening, because they are saying: “Who is that guy, anyway?”

I must remember to comment to those who are watching from the fine riding of Bruce, because the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), the Chairman of the Management Board, indicated that he had a group of people down last week and they were so disappointed that I was not in attendance. I do not know why I was not; I should have been. In any event, I apologize profusely, and I hope that upon another sojourn their member will advise me in advance and we will greet them with open arms at another time.

To refresh everybody’s memory: To make electricity, you have to turn a turbine. You turn the turbine; it turns a rotor on top; you have large magnets and they send out electricity through these huge transmission wires across Ontario. “Rudimentary,” someone says.

That electricity is made, sort of, in three ways. I know all the Liberal backbenchers will really appreciate this, because is there not someplace better they would rather be on a Thursday morning?

First, you have falling water: Niagara Falls. The water comes down and they put it through great big chutes. In the various committees I sat on, we had the opportunity to go. The water goes down and turns these turbines and, presto, we have electricity coming out of the Niagara Falls area. That has produced one third of the power for the province in terms of electricity.

Then we have coal, oil and gas. That produces roughly another third, so there is 60 per cent. Then, I say to my colleague the Energy critic for the New Democratic Party, 40 per cent is produced by nuclear power. We have site locations at Bruce, Pickering; in my own riding of Durham East we have Darlington, which is presently under construction and will come on stream this fall; we have some smaller units along the Ottawa River which are being phased out of production.

We have the production of electricity in terms of those three major sources. The difficulty arises that at the moment there is some projection that we are going to be running out of electricity; conversely, the demand for electricity is going to be increasing in terms of what we can supply. Do we run around and look at the sky and say, “The sky is falling”? I am not one to be so panicky, but we can be in the position to be a little panicky if -- here it comes; do I hear a drumroll? -- this Liberal administration does not do anything to get its act together in terms of the construction of a new generating facility.

I hear the people screaming at home: “What’s going on? Does that mean that if we turn on the light switch at home, the light bulb won’t go on?” That is exactly what it means.

Why am I bringing in this resolution? Let’s talk turkey, as my leader said yesterday. The reason I am bringing in this resolution is to try to embarrass this government, which, as we have seen over the last month, has no shame. No shame? Well, a little shame, I say to the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney). My attempt is to try to embarrass them so they will sit up, if it is at all possible, and take consideration of the fact that indeed we are going to need more electricity.

I know this government has had lots of other things on its plate over the last six weeks, which I will not review, because, as I indicated before, all those other wonderful things that have taken place are more the purview of my illustrious colleagues who sit on the front benches of our two opposition parties.

I want to centre on an important issue that is going to be with us for a long time. The various so-called scandals are going to come and go, but this one is with us and is going to be with us. It is a major issue we have not been -- not “we”; not my colleagues from the official opposition and not us: I have yet to get used to calling ourselves the third party. This government has not been centring on issues.

I say to all the backbenchers, most of whom will not be here after the next election anyway so they might as well just sit back and enjoy my little talk: Do they know what is going to happen? If they wind up with a brownout in their constituencies, they are going to be answering the phone, or their staff is, and they are going to have to try to come up with an answer why this government has led the province to the position of being short of electrical power.

Mr Ruprecht: Name names.

Mr Cureatz: The honourable member says, “Name names.” All I have to do is hold up the sheet and I can go over all the members in the various seats and single out those in particular who will not be back for the next sojourn. If I name names, it would use up all my time and I would not discuss my resolution, so I will save that for another topic. We have two more years to go here, so they can just enjoy all their fanciful impressions of how they are going to get back, because most of them are not.

“Is there a concern?” I hear. I say to my friends in the official opposition and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Charlton) that he and his party -- and he has sat with me a number of times on the various select committees on energy; I am sure we will hear from him -- come to the problem from a different approach. But I respect their position; at least it is a position.

Their position is that if you conserve enough electricity -- they came up with the Passmore Associates research a couple of weeks ago. I will refresh the memories of those at home. Roughly speaking, Ontario needs about 25,000 megawatts to run the province and at present Ontario Hydro is producing the 25,000 megawatts; these are rough terms. The difficulty is that it would appear we would need, through various projections, another 5,000 megawatts maybe by the end of the next decade.

Where do we get the 5,000 megawatts? The official opposition indicates that it can he obtained by conservation: various appliance uses, taking a look at better insulation, etc. My feeling and our party’s feeling is that all those are indeed worthwhile goals, but our projection is -- you have to look into the crystal ball, but it is better to be on the safe side than on the sorry side -- as we look into the crystal ball, our projection is that notwithstanding the conservation the official opposition has indicated, we are still going to be needing another major electrical supply plant.

Who else says so? Interestingly enough, last week there was a meeting with AMPCO, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. Unfortunately, due to the Shriners’ parade, yours truly was caught -- where else? -- in traffic, but the association did meet with our leader to indicate some concerns it has. They left with us Scanner, with a nice picture of the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong ) on the front. Here is what they indicated in their opening remarks:

“Ontario stands on the threshold of a crisis in electricity supply. Brownouts, blackouts, even the possible loss of investment and jobs lurk just around the corner unless the province commits to building a major new generating facility immediately. That is the key message that leading industry leaders will take to the Ontario public this summer and fall, as part of the high-profile public awareness campaign launched recently by the joint industry task force, JITF.”

In a speech delivered by Bill James of AMPCO back in April this year:

“Today you are going to hear about the concerns of industry regarding the prospect of power shortages in Ontario in the relatively near future. In August last year, there were six or seven occasions when power supply to Ontario industries had to be interrupted because of less than adequate reserve margins on the Hydro system. It seems that only when we get to the point of general brownouts and blackouts will there be any urgency applied to getting on with the job of planning and decision-making, and by then it will be far too late to avoid lost opportunities for growth in employment and the Ontario economy.”

We have to remember that the major users of electricity, in terms of large industries, are employing thousands of people in Ontario. So what are we talking about, when it comes down to the bottom line? Job losses or job postponements.

For instance, in the city of Oshawa, of which I represent the north portion -- in the past 10 years I have had the wonderful opportunity of representing almost half the city; now my learned colleague the member for Durham Centre (Mr Furlong) has the opportunity of representing that fine area, as I had, and we will see if he is going to do such a wonderful job as maybe I did the last go-round if he gets re-elected -- if the line at General Motors has to be shut down because one of the transmission lines is not carrying enough electricity to make the line go around, the 7,000 to 8,000 people who are working at GM will have to be sent home because there is no electricity.

No one thinks about these things. We get carried away from day to day with some of the high-profile issues in the major newspapers, but if we have a brownout, a blackout or if people are being sent home, or if they go home and cannot turn on the switch because there is no electricity, then there will be someone to answer for it, and it is going to be this government, as tedious as this topic is.

Is this government going to do anything? I had the opportunity of reviewing -- through the library, which I might add did a wonderful job in research for me, which I appreciate -- that back on 22 February 1978, under the topic “Darlington Nuclear Plant,” there was a question from a gentleman by the name of Mr S. Smith. Who has heard of S. Smith? Hands up. No one from the Liberal Party has put his hand up -- well, one. He was their esteemed leader back before the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson) took over, who is now the Premier.

What did Mr Smith have to say?

“In view of the fact that the primary rationale for exempting the Darlington station from the Environmental Assessment Act was the need for this plant to be operating in time to avoid supposed power shortages in the mid-1980s, and in keeping with the new study with regard to the projected growth in electrical power consumption, does the minister now agree that the tremendous degree of rush that was referred to, no longer exists and that it is possible to have the project referred under the Environmental Assessment Act?”

We can go on with page after page, but the direction, if there was any kind of precedent set by the Liberal Party, was to sit back. As indicated by the then leader of the Liberal Party, the need for Darlington was not paramount and there should be an expansion of the environmental process which Ontario Hydro did in-house by a full environmental assessment hearing.

It would seem to me that this administration is taking that same course of action, namely, that it is going to sit back. For those who have been interested in question period, I have been asking questions over the last few months of the Minister of Energy on a variety of fields, but always concluding by asking: When is he going to make the decision to build a new major electrical producing plant, where is it going to be and when is it going to come on stream? I am not even centring on what manner of plant that should be -- hydro, oil, gas or nuclear -- I am just asking him to get on with the job.

I have also been inquiring: If the minister is that hesitant about it, why does he not at least start some kind of environmental process on the various possible sites that can be selected for a major plant?

I asked the Minister of Energy, I guess it was the first of this week, about what Ontario Hydro is doing with the investigation of Sir Adam Beck 3 down at Niagara Falls. Is that not an environmental assessment and has he not approved it? Has Ontario Hydro in its Hydroscope not indicated it is going to take four years to do that full investigation?

If I remember Hydroscope correctly, that is only going to supply about 1,000 megawatts. We are still going to need a few more thousand megawatts to at least have a cushion, never mind meeting the demand. So why does the minister not make the decision to intervene to allow Hydro to start at least some environmental assessments?

This government’s policy at the moment is to put it off. They are hoping they are going to delay the decision until after the next election. I can tell them they are not going to get away with it. The next election is two years away, and if the projections of what we have seen through the various select committees on energy hold true, we are going to be forced into a position of at least some brownouts during the heavy winter cold spells and the very hot spells in summer-time.

As frustrating as it is, I say to all the moms and dads at home, my time is running out. I can see the crocodile tears around the assembly; everyone is remorseful about that. I will reserve a moment or two to allow me a summation. We are looking forward with great anticipation to what the sheep have to say, to see how have they been directed by the front four to respond to this resolution. It is going to be pretty crucial if we run out of electricity; it will not power the lights of this assembly or will not power -- heaven forbid -- the televisions at home.

Mr South: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the resolution made by the member for Durham East. I would say without any hesitation that there is no one in this House I enjoy listening to more than the member for Durham East. He speaks with a great deal of candour. He brings a certain amount of amusement to his remarks, but always they are very insightful and they are always said with a lot of sincerity. I say to the member, as one of the sheep he referred to, he is going to have to listen to these remarks.

We do believe that there are some real concerns about what the next major generating station will be for Ontario Hydro and where it will be located. That is a matter of great concern. But essentially you cannot put the cart before the horse and you certainly cannot leap before you look when making important decisions like this, especially when these decisions will have far-reaching effects on the people of this province for decades to come. That is exactly what the member for Durham East is asking us to do in his resolution, and it is for that reason and for others that I will outline why I cannot support his resolution.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I have had a chance to learn a great deal about the energy picture in this province. I agree that the demand for energy, and electricity in particular, is growing. By the year 2000, Ontario residents are likely to be consuming 13 per cent more oil, 25 per cent more natural gas and, in the absence of demand management measures, 39 per cent more electricity.

I think the member for Durham East is correct in saying that Ontario has to investigate new, major sources of electricity supply for this province. In fact, the government is conducting such an investigation: a comprehensive and detailed investigation of Ontario Hydro’s planning process and of Ontario’s energy options.

Let me fill some of the members in on the history behind the process. It really began when the government received Ontario Hydro’s draft demand-supply planning strategy, better known as the DSPS. This weighty report laid down the basis for Hydro’s planning process and for such things as forecasting, and it has focused the debate on the future of Ontario’s electricity system.

It is an important document and one which the recent select committee on energy studied at some length. I know both the member for Durham East and I can attest to that, as we were both present on that committee.

I might add that it was not the select committee alone which examined this report. An independent panel of technical experts on electricity planning also reviewed the strategy. In addition, about a dozen government ministries reported on the document.

The findings of all these intensive studies have been passed along to Ontario Hydro. I understand the utility has been asked to come up with its preferred demand-supply plan this fall and I await that plan with great interest, as I am sure we all do.

Certainly, this government has already acted on some of the recommendations arising out of the reviews of the DSPS. The technical panel suggested that the issue of Candu nuclear costing needed to be further investigated. That review was completed by a two-person panel which concluded that Hydro’s cost estimates were sound.

I know that many members of the public had concerns about the costing issue and about the question of nuclear safety. The government commissioned a report by Dr Kenneth Hare that was tabled in the House early last year. It responded to and addressed many of these concerns.

We on this side of the House have not been idle on the issue of energy planning and supply. As I see it, this government has invested a great deal of time and energy in these questions. Again, I agree with the member for Durham East that these are important questions; important to our economy and to the environment.

I do not think we have all the answers to these questions yet but we have come a long way in gathering the necessary information upon which we can base good and responsible decisions.

Certainly the government has set some definite priorities in terms of reviewing all of our electricity options. I think it is important to look at these options in terms of how they impact on economic development in the province. We have to make sure that any choices we make will help to improve our competitive ability in the new global economy. Being able to compete means that our economy will continue to grow and create new jobs and businesses.

As all members are aware, there is a growing concern for the quality of our environment. Any energy choices we make have to take this concern into account. Our use of energy and the production of our energy resources have some negative impacts on the air we breathe and the water we drink. We have to work hard to reduce these negative impacts.

Obviously a secure supply of energy is critical to our economic future. Our businesses and industries depend on our reliable and relatively low-cost supply of electricity to stay in business. All of us depend on energy to help maintain the wonderful quality of life we enjoy in this province. We have to make sure that everyone in Ontario is using energy wisely, that we are getting the most out of every megawatt of energy we produce. I think we all have to put a higher priority on energy efficiency and conservation. By conserving energy and using it more efficiently, we can better our economic performance and our environment.

I would add that energy efficiency will help to cut our $12.5-billion annual energy bill. This will free up some of the province’s money, money that could be better spent on important items like health care and education.

As the member for Durham East knows, this province has a wide range of options to choose from in terms of future supply. There is the option of major new generation stations powered by coal, oil, gas or nuclear power. We could also look at trying to get more out of the existing facilities in Ontario. One example was alluded to by the member for Durham East, and that is the Sir Adam Beck 3 plant, which will produce an additional 700 megawatts of electrical energy. I think we can all agree that we should try to work on this kind of system enhancement across the province.

Look at my own riding of Frontenac-Addington, where the Lennox oil-fired plant is located. I might say that Lennox was built by a previous government that did not look before it leaped. That is why it sat there for a number of years not being used. Recently, however, part of that station was recommissioned to meet the peak needs of my part of the province.

I could also point to the Wesleyville generating station, widely known as the Wesleyville white elephant today. I think it was the same government that did not do the necessary planning for Lennox that built this station not too far from where the member for Durham East lives.

I think we should take a second look at Wesleyville to see if it could be retrofitted and brought into service some time in the future. Ontario could also get a new supply by buying it from our neighbouring provinces, such as Manitoba and Quebec. We are looking at both of these options.

Natural gas can also be used in the cogeneration process, and I understand there are energy and environmental benefits. I think Ontario Hydro should be encouraged to consider co-operating with the private sector to develop this energy source.

In closing, let me say that we have to take a responsible and prudent approach to planning for our energy future. As such, I cannot support the resolution of the member for Durham East.

Mr Charlton: I will start out my comments by congratulating the member for Durham East. I am sure he is watching these comments wherever he has gone. I congratulate him for the concerns that he feels, the concerns that prompted him to bring forward this resolution.

I happen to share his concerns about Ontario’s energy future, although I must say at the outset that I will not be supporting his resolution. I will not be supporting it for far different reasons than were just expressed by the government member, the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr South).

I will not be supporting the resolution because of some of the very specific things which this resolution actually says. Unfortunately, the member for Frontenac-Addington completely avoided what the resolution says in his remarks.

I say to the member for Durham East, as I have already said, that I share his concerns, but in his own speech here today, he set out very clearly a number of reasons why the direction his resolution presents is the wrong one for us to follow.

First, his resolution says “several studies and reports have shown Ontario Hydro does not have the capacity to supply forecasted demands of electricity for the year 2000.” That is essentially true. What the resolution forgets to deal with is all of the studies that have been done in the last three years that clearly show us that Ontario’s needs for the next 20 years can be met without Ontario Hydro’s building a single megawatt of additional generating capacity in Ontario.

The Ministry of Energy has commissioned studies on conservation in Ontario, on industrial cogeneration in Ontario and on private independent generation in the province, all of which show substantial potential at significantly lower cost than our next nuclear plant, or our next generation facility of any kind, to help us meet the needs of electrical energy in the future in this province.

The member, when he was saying why he had brought this resolution forward, used the phrase that he hoped to force the government to sit up and listen. I want to say to the member for Durham East that in order for the government to sit up and listen, there has to be a spine. This government, unfortunately, has not shown any more spine in dealing with and controlling Ontario Hydro than the previous Conservative administration did, and that is part of the problem.

The member also referred to meetings which his leader had with representatives of AMPCO, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. He is right in understanding that AMPCO has a major concern about the future of electrical energy in Ontario. But AMPCO is one of the major culprits in terms of dealing with how we approach that question, because its members are the major power consumers in this province and they also hold the keys to many of the solutions in the industrial sector.

Until we effectively address those questions, it seems to me a bit irresponsible for AMPCO to be here demanding that Ontario Hydro build new facilities that would be paid for by all the people of Ontario, while AMPCO members pay the lowest and most-subsidized rates for the electricity they will then use.

The member for Durham East also referred to questions like transmission and the problems when the transmissions lines either are down or cannot carry the power that is required by a firm like General Motors, for example. I point out to the member for Durham East that one of the beauties of energy efficiency is that kilowatts saved do not require transmission, nor do kilowatts saved require a reserve margin. He also referred to the declining reserve margin we are faced with in Ontario, and kilowatts saved also do not require a reserve margin.

To put it another way, so we can understand the real perspective in terms of meeting our electrical energy needs via efficiency versus constructing a new plant, if you go the efficiency route you have to create only 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the capacity you have to create if you build a plant, because you have to build the plant plus a reserve margin to make the system viable.

If we need 5,000 megawatts of generated electricity in Ontario, we can supply that need with only 4,000 megawatts of efficiency. That is one of the realities we have to deal with in the whole course of this discussion.

There is another aspect of the member’s resolution which causes me particular and great concern, and that is the part that says “to establish a new generating station that can be approved in advance, such as the site selection process, with consideration that it could be a station using one or more sources of fuel.

Again, I understand the concern that has been expressed by several members of the government party about this advance approval process, about having everything in place so that you can move quickly when the time comes, but the very wording of this resolution sets out the problem. A site that might be acceptable for a nuclear plant is not necessarily acceptable for a coal-fired plant, a hydraulic plant, a gas-fired plant or an oil-fired plant, because the environmental criteria in each case are substantially different.

Let me just take the examples of the two most likely options if you are going to build a generation facility, one being nuclear and the other being coal. Because of the cost questions, gas and oil have been a little bit out of the picture in Ontario, although in the future, as cost structures change, they could come back into the picture.

A nuclear plant looks for a site that is fundamentally solid and stable. They talk about earthquake-proofing nuclear plants, they talk about protecting the storage bins in which the spent fuel is kept and so on. But the site-specific criteria for a coal-fired plant are substantially different, because of the need to store large volumes of coal on the site, because of the process Ontario Hydro goes through now of crushing, washing and cleaning coal and the coal dust that emanates from that process, the sulphur that is extracted from the coal in that process and a number of other factors which totally change the nature of the site you want to look for for a coal-fired plant.

To talk about advance approval of a site which may be utilized for a plant using any number of different fuels is a totally inappropriate way to approach the whole question of environmental assessment. I have no objection if Ontario Hydro wants to proceed internally to plan and design its next generation facility so that, if and when it is needed, it can proceed quickly to make applications. I have absolutely no objection if Ontario Hydro wants to proceed internally to identify sites for the next nuclear plant or sites for the next coal plant, but they will not be the same site. For those reasons, I find the specific wording of this resolution very difficult to support.

Having said that, I repeat what I said at the outset: I agree with the concerns that have been expressed by the member for Durham East. I agree that we need to make this government sit up, and that is going to be difficult, until it is prepared to deal in a much more straightforward and aggressive fashion with Ontario Hydro. We need to answer within the next two years the questions about where we go with electrical energy in the future.

Mr Runciman: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate this morning and to support my colleague the member for Durham East with respect to the resolution he has placed before the House. I think what he is attempting to do, and certainly what the party is attempting to do, is send out a message that indeed it is an urgent situation and that Ontario could find itself in significant difficulties in the not-too-distant future if the government is not prepared to make some decisions with respect to the construction of new generating facilities in the province.

At this point, as the member for Durham East indicated, not taking action has significant negative implications for the economy of this province. We are talking about jobs, we are talking about attracting new investment and we are talking about keeping the cost of power in this province at a very attractive level. Again, if initiatives are not undertaken in the near future, much of that could be placed in jeopardy.

I guess this ties in with a number of other concerns with respect to the operations of this government currently. They do not seem to have any significant or meaningful agenda; they are drifting on a number of important issues. We could suggest perhaps that the recent matter dealing with Mrs Starr may be causing some of the paralysis in this government, but it goes back beyond the revelations related to Mrs Starr. There really does not seem to be anyone prepared to take the bull by the horns with respect to a number of controversial issues facing this province.

The member for Frontenac-Addington talked about a number of options being available to the government. I am not certain that I would share that view with respect to the number of options in terms of ability to meet the forecast growth patterns in this province in terms of electrical consumption. Before I go any further, he mentioned the former government constructing a plant in his area which was shut down for a number of years and he suggested that was poor planning.

I have some difficulty with that because, as he knows, that plant was an oil-fired station and in reality it was shut down because of the effluent and the acid rain concerns. Because of increasing consumption levels in this province, the plant had to be put on stream.

Again, talking about the number of options available, the member for Durham East went through those in detail, but I just want to touch on them again. On hydro generation, we are limited very much in what we can do. We can look at a few new sites, retrofit and so on. On coal and gas, again, I think there are some opportunities here, especially with clean western coal, in not only helping ourselves locally with respect to the generation of new electricity, but also in assisting our Canadian neighbours, as well, in terms of the total economic picture for this country. But again, we are talking about finite resources and we are talking about acid rain problems.

Of course, there was significant testimony before the select committee on energy, which I had the good fortune to sit on. We heard a great deal of detail with respect to what these products are doing to the ozone layer and other significant concerns with respect to pollution of lakes, damage to trees, acidification of farm land and so on, which is increasingly becoming a concern of most countries of the world.

I think we have to take a very careful look at how much further we want to go with respect to generation of electricity through the use of polluting, finite fuels which over the long haul are perhaps not in our best interests environmentally and are certainly not in the best interests of providing long-term assurance of reliability of supply.

Now we get down to a number of other options, including conservation and demand management. Again, these are very positive areas in which to look for savings, if you will, but again, they alone are not going to solve the energy problems of this province.

Then we get down to nuclear. We had significant testimony before us in the select committee, both pro and con, with respect to nuclear. I guess I was not personally persuaded that the negatives with respect to nuclear generation outweigh the positives. We can take a look at the fact that with respect to emissions from these plants, we are not going to be doing any further damage to the ozone layer. We are not producing acid rain.

There is certainly a question about the ability to deal with the waste from nuclear plants, but I think those are problems that can be solved, will be solved and, in some respects, are now being solved. Even if you take a look at the amount of waste generated from nuclear facilities, it is relatively modest in terms of tonnage, if you will. I think we certainly cannot rule that out.

With respect to my party, I think my colleague and I and the select committee have suggested that we should be looking at a number of things which certainly are not restricted or limited to nuclear. Approval banking, which is mentioned in the member’s resolution, we think is an excellent way to go.

Another area we talked about in the select committee was building to export. We find that reasonably attractive. Rather than simply delaying until the need is apparent in this province, why do we not take a look at entering into agreements with our neighbours to the south so that we can construct generating facilities, get them on stream and enter into sale agreements with our neighbours to provide them with electricity over a given period of time. Then, when our needs increase in this province, we will already have that generating facility or facilities on stream and will be able to cope with any increasing demand.

When we talk about increasing demand, there is no question that it is there. All of the signs, all of the signals are there. If you look at the studies done with respect to what is going to happen in this province as a result of free trade, although I know the government disagreed with that initiative, certainly all the studies indicated a significant increase in the number of manufacturing jobs in this province, and Ontario Hydro’s studies indicated a significant increase as well in demand for additional hydro resources.

We just have to look at what happened last summer with an extremely hot summer when we were faced with Hydro running into its peak during the summer, I think, for the first time. My colleague confirms that. We had to go through a point where we were faced with a possibility of brownouts during the summer months. We have a number of companies that have been operating in this province on interruptible supply that are finding their supplies now being too frequently interrupted and are having to look at moving away from interruptible supply contracts. It is a significant problem.

We have talked about this government’s ability to deal effectively with the management of Ontario Hydro and I think that is a cause for concern. Ontario Hydro is a power unto itself. There is no question about that when we take a look at what has happened with their debt. I brought forward a question some time last year with respect to the differential in the United States dollar and the Canadian dollar, the debt repayment to the United States and the fact that Ontario Hydro was going to reap a windfall in the neighbourhood of $150 million.

I suggested to the minister at that time that there be a one-time application to significantly reduce the Ontario Hydro debt. The impact of that one-time, $150-million payment was astounding over a 10-year period in terms of the reduction in debt and the impact it was going to have. But this minister was not prepared to indicate to us, to this House or to Ontario Hydro, “Yes, indeed, we recognize the Hydro debt is a major problem and we’re going to ensure that they take action on it and recognize it as a major problem.”

We could not get that kind of commitment out of him. We can never get that kind of commitment out of him. He is a very likeable individual, no doubt, but he is not a strong enough personality, in my view, to be able to deal effectively with the powers that be at Ontario Hydro. We on this side of the House have to be very much concerned with his ability to twist arms with those folks because there is no doubt about it, they know where they are going and they are very familiar with the games of persuasion and ability to twist governments and government officials around their little fingers. It has been proven on many occasions over the past 10, 15, 20 years.

Another indication: The Cresap study done on Ontario Hydro indicated 2,500 redundant employees in just one

section of Ontario Hydro. What was Ontario Hydro going to do about those 2,500 employees? Nothing. “Resource smoothing” they call it. They build a new building in North York to house 2,500 redundant employees.

Ms Collins: The member for Durham East would have us all believe that it is necessary to get the shovel in the ground on new energy supply tomorrow. I do not believe that is the case. This province is not running on empty. It is, in fact, running on a very strong and reliable electricity system. It is a system that has served this province well over the past 80 years. I believe it will continue to do so over the next 80 years and beyond if we take the time and effort to ensure that the decisions we make about the future are the right decisions.

My friend the member for Frontenac-Addington talked about the process the government is involved in to examine our energy future. He referred to the detailed investigation the government is conducting into our energy choices. I think this is a valuable exercise. We have to answer the questions about the economic and environmental impacts of our energy choices before we make those choices. There are many outstanding questions.

However, in this day of increased global competition and growing concern about the environment, I believe there are decisions we can make today in the energy sector. I believe we have to make a decision to aggressively pursue wise energy management. That means making better use of our energy resources, and that means managing our energy demand more effectively. Demand management through such initiatives as conservation and energy efficiency must be a continuing priority of this government.

Yes, I agree with the member for Durham East that we have to investigate major new sources of electricity supply. Ontario’s electricity needs are growing. But there is more than one way of doing this. Just because we acknowledge the need for a major new supply some time in the future does not mean we should not try to capture some of this supply from gains in energy efficiency today.

I understand that estimates on the amount of energy we could save through demand management vary. I know that some energy interest groups have suggested that we would never have to build another generating station if we implemented efficiency improvements and moved to more private-sector-generated power. There are others who suggest that efficiency improvements cannot be counted on and that the shovel should have been in the ground yesterday.

But surely it is not the debate on the amount of gains we can make through energy efficiency and conservation that matters. What does matter is the significant benefits that come from pursuing these gains. I have been told that energy efficiency is directly related to productivity. The less energy used per unit of production output translates into a better bottom line for industry. As we all know, a better bottom line means a more competitive product. Today, as we face Fortress Europe and a new trading environment, the ability to compete is more important than ever before.

Here in Ontario, gains in efficiency can also have a significant impact on the province’s bottom line. Ontario is Canada’s largest energy-consuming province, and we have a $12.5-billion bill to prove it. Using our energy more wisely can reduce that bill, freeing up more money for our social programs. Improvements in the way we use energy can be made across the board. In industry, commerce, governments and at home, each of us can make a difference by doing such things as turning off unneeded lighting or keeping the thermostat turned back at night over the winter months.

Home owners can make investments in insulation, weatherstripping and caulking. Saving energy at home means saving money, and that means increased consumer spending power.

I know the Minister of Energy recently announced the first standards under the Energy Efficiency Act. This act, which enables the government to set minimum efficiency standards for household appliances, will go a long way in improving the way we use our energy in this province. I understand the Ministry of Energy has efficiency programs targeted at every sector of our economy. I applaud the efforts being made; however, I think we could be doing more in this important area.

Energy efficiency does more than just benefit our collective pocketbooks, and it does more than enhance Ontario’s energy security and self-sufficiency. Perhaps most important of all, it can mean major benefits for our environment. The global warming trend and acid rain have become household words. The public is alarmed by the degradation of our environment and is looking for leadership from government that will protect this important legacy. Energy use and the production of new energy resources have negative impacts on the environment. Using energy more efficiently will help to minimize these impacts and protect the quality of our land, our air and our water.

I believe that as the government moves to investigate new supply, it should also be moving to implement new and more aggressive demand management initiatives. A responsible approach to electricity planning means examining both the demand and supply sides of our energy picture. I understand that Ontario Hydro’s demand-supply plan will include plans for demand management and I look forward to seeing that plan this fall.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Durham East reserved three and two thirds minutes.

Mr Cureatz: Do I not get the other minute that no one else wanted to use? I say that to the Speaker notwithstanding the fact that he hosts such a lovely dinner meeting from time to time during which some crucial issues of this assembly have to be discussed. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) and I were very concerned about some major issues and we certainly related them to the Speaker.

He missed some of my opening remarks concerning my resolution. I want to refresh his memory. As I was hearing some of the speeches, I was thinking to myself, I said: “Self, what a great resolution: ‘That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing the importance of a reliable supply of electricity to individuals in their homes and to the economy in general for job creation, industry and commercial establishments...the government of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Energy, should direct Ontario Hydro to initiate any aspects of the process to establish a new generating station.’”

At least we have heard from this nasty, huge, arrogant Liberal government that it is against the resolution. They finally made a decision. Holy smokes. What have they decided they are against? They are against job creation. They are against individuals living in their homes. They are against industry and they are against commercial establishments.

When that next election comes around and on election night, about 10:30 at night when those Liberal backbenchers are looking at the poll results coming in and they are going down the drain, they will be saying to themselves: “Jeepers, I should have supported Sam’s resolution, that great member for Durham East, because he was in favour of jobs in Ontario. He was in favour of ensuring that people could go into their homes and turn on the switches and get electricity. He was in favour of electricity turning the wheels of industry in the heartland of Canada.”

Not this group; no, sir. These guys are in for big trouble because this is a big, crucial issue. I have not even gone into, as my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) indicated -- and of course I should not be remiss but should thank all of those who participated in the debate. As bad as the comments were against my resolution, we appreciate their thoughts and concerns. Of course, the Liberals are toeing the party line: delay, delay, delay.

The honourable member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway) knows the crisis we are in because down in his riding -- well, it is a long story and I do not want to bore members with it, but it was a great story. In any event, he knows the crucial aspects that we are involved with in terms of electricity.

For the last 30, 40 seconds that I have, I am going to look into the crystal ball. Do members know what I foresee? I foresee this government finally making a decision. We have to go through all this stuff, but finally it is going to be so crucial to Ontario that, yes, it will come forth with an announcement -- I say to the member for Hamilton Mountain, and boy, he will be really angry. Do members know what the announcement is going to be? That Darlington 2, another four-unit nuclear station out in my riding of Durham East, is going to have to be constructed.

That decision is going to be forthcoming, preferably before the next election, to ensure that we are going to have electricity after the next election, in which, I fear, we are going to be suffering brownouts.

DRUG BENEFITS

The House divided on Mr Kormos’s motion of resolution 22, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cureatz, Eves, Hampton, Henderson, Jackson, Kormos, Kozyra, Laughren, LeBourdais, Leone, Mackenzie, Matrundola, McLean, Morin-Strom, Nicholas, Offer, Philip, E., Polsinelli, Pope, Reville, Roberts, Sullivan, Wildman, Wilson.

Nays

Ballinger, Brown, Callahan, Collins, Cousens, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Furlong, Kanter, Keyes, Lipsett, Mahoney, Mancini, Miclash, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Poole, Reycraft, Ruprecht, South, Sterling, Tatham.

Ayes 28; nays 25.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

The House divided on Mr Cureatz’s motion of resolution 19, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Callahan, Cooke, D. R., Cousens, Cureatz, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Henderson, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Leone, Matrundola, McLean, Miclash, Nicholas, Pope, Roberts, Runciman, Sullivan, Tatham.

Nays

Ballinger, Brown, Bryden, Charlton, Collins, Cooke, D. S., Elliot, Fleet, Furlong, Hampton, Kanter, Keyes, Kormos, Laughren, Lipsett, Mackenzie, Mancini, Morin-Strom, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, Philip, E., Polsinelli, Poole, Rae, B., Reville, Reycraft, Ruprecht, South, Wildman, Wilson.

Ayes 20; nays 31.

The House recessed at 1216.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

ESTIMATES

Hon Mr Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Administrator of Ontario, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: The Administrator of Ontario transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1990 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, signed by Mr Howland.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

BIRTH CERTIFICATES FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr Hampton: Sometimes in the course of doing constituency case work, you come across some unbelievable situations. The fight in which many Indian people must engage in order to get an Ontario birth certificate is such an unbelievable situation.

Several Indian people who were born on remote reserves prior to 1950 have never been able to acquire an Ontario birth certificate. Because many of these individuals were born on the reserve and not in a hospital, there are no hospital records of their birth. Because reserves then were remote and required travel by bush plane or boat, census statistics from Statistics Canada did not record their birth, then nor since.

No school records exist for many of these people, because they chose not to attend Indian residential schools that dominated native education until the last decade, schools which required a fair bit of religious indoctrination as well as education. If they did not register under the Indian Act as status Indians, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa has no record of them either.

When Indian people lack indicia of birth and existence, the government’s vital statistics branch will not provide them with Ontario birth certificates. The government’s requirements for the granting of birth certificates unfairly discriminates against Indian people, specifically against older Indian people who initially lived a very traditional lifestyle. The criteria the government has set are simply culture-bound.

TOURISM

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil). It is quite clear that the minister is not the champion of the tourist industry he claims he is, if the May budget is any indication.

For example, his government’s proposed payroll tax will lead to employment rationalization and see employees ultimately pay as employers reduce salary increases to compensate for this new tax, and create increased inflation and make Ontario’s tourism less competitive in targeted US markets. The increased payroll tax will result in reduced pleasure and vacation travel in Ontario and increased pleasure and vacation travel by Ontarians to the United States and other less costly travel destinations.

Increased fuel taxes will result in less travel by automobile in Ontario, fewer American visitors and more travel by Ontarians to the United States. Increased beverage alcohol taxes will result in reduced licensee sales of beverage alcohol.

This will result in less discretionary income for all Ontario drivers and less discretionary travel and spending on tourism and hospitality products and services in this province.

The government is crippling this province’s tourist industry with increased taxes. It has also frozen and reduced transfer payments to municipalities and school boards, but still expects them to come up with the new payroll tax. The government’s policies for wringing more and more tax dollars out of the people of Ontario will lead to increased inflation and increased unemployment. The people of Ontario have had enough.

FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr Fleet: Brian Mulroney, just say no. Proposals to accelerate tariff reductions under the free trade agreement for soybean oils jeopardize an important Canadian-owned company and the workers and their families who depend on it.

Canada Packers Inc has the largest edible oil refining plant in Canada located in my riding, where over 225 people are employed. The company has invested $52 million in plant modernizations in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec in recent years to ensure it is competitive in a tariff-sensitive industry. Canada Packers represents 40 per cent of the Canadian refining market in edible oils and fat products.

Free trade means Canada Packers must compete against more specialized American giants. The company needs time to change its business structure and find a niche in the American market. Fresh multimillion-dollar investments are necessary for physical plant changes, market research and personnel training. Although Canada Packers is willing to take up this challenge, it is impossible if the company is denied adequate time to adapt. Jobs, as well as the wellbeing of Canada Packers, are seriously compromised by the new proposals.

Brian Mulroney, your government has the authority to stop this. Do your duty to protect the interests of Canadians. Say no to the fast-tracking of these tariff reductions.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: In September 1987, the Premier (Mr Peterson) promised that he had a specific plan that would lower auto insurance rates. Since that time, rates have increased by approximately 17 per cent. The government then established the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, which was supposed to set rates. When that board brought in recommendations with rate increases that were unacceptable to the government, the government said, “We can’t accept those proposals, and we’re going to put a cap on at 7.6 per cent.”

Then the minister, in another example of his Keystone Cops scenario, gets the report from the auto insurance board which tells him that no-fault insurance is not the answer either and would really cause no meaningful saving to the driver in Ontario. While this chaos is going on around us, the insurance companies are toying with the minister and his cap on insurance rate increases. In one case I raised in the assembly the other day, one company with the same address, same president, same signatures on the forms, had increased an insured’s rates by almost 30 per cent.

It is absolutely ridiculous, and the minister has done absolutely nothing about it. The present minister has raised incompetence to an art form.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr Jackson: On 2 May this year, the Liberal government grabbed headlines with an announcement regarding funding for shelters for battered women. What the headlines did not say was that this money is not going to result in any new beds in an incredibly overcrowded system. Nor did it recognize the special needs and demands for these services in northern Ontario. Remember, it was this Liberal government that allowed a rape crisis centre in Sault Ste Marie to close for lack of funding.

New Starts for Women Inc has identified the need for a shelter for victims of family violence in the Red Lake area in the riding of Kenora. There has been no action undertaken by the Liberal government in this regard, and no confirmation from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Last year, 56 women and 86 children were referred because they were victims of violence. There were no places to refer them to. Where did they go to find their shelter? Many were referred out of this province to Winnipeg, Manitoba.

The Ontario government has shown its lack of understanding of the legitimate need for local shelter by denying funding to this group. All those splashy headlines are not going to help the victims of family violence in the Red Lake area. The government will not acknowledge the need for services for victims of family violence in this area. This group has documented that critical need, yet the government turns a deaf ear. Government by headline is not going to respond to the desperate need for services for victims of family violence in northwestern Ontario.

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr Tatham: Headline: “G-7 Leaders Closer Than Ever.” The press commented that West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was a major supporter of Canada’s proposal for a standard system of indicators to measure the environmental effects of economic policy and business decisions. However, in recent discussions with Brazil about the loss of its rain forest, the West Germans were frustrated when the Brazilians disputed Bonn’s estimates of the size of the problem.

It is funny how we point the finger at the other fellow. How about Transport 2000 telling us highways use 2.7 times as much land as rail, passenger cars use 3.5 times as much energy, freight trucks use 8.7 times as much energy and motor vehicles cause nine times as much pollution and have 24 times as many accidents?

Bangkok is negotiating to build a $2.3-billion sky train. Part of the complex financing package is a proposed $625-million loan by Ottawa’s Export Development Corp.

Environment, money, trains. Chief Seathl of the Duwamish tribe said it well: “All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth.”

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PARALLEL GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

Hon Mr Wong: Today I am pleased to announce this government’s policy on the parallel generation of electricity in Ontario.

As some members may know, parallel generation is the production of electricity from equipment that is not owned or operated by a central utility, in our case Ontario Hydro. Parallel generators, such as municipal utilities, entrepreneurs, industry and gas utilities, sell their electricity to the central transmission grid. It can include electricity generated from a number of sources, such as water, natural gas, wood waste or solar and wind power among others.

As members are aware, I recently introduced amendments to the Power Corporation Act designed to make Ontario Hydro more responsive to government policies and public priorities. The policy I am presenting today fulfills a commitment made in that legislative package to help reduce the barriers and to encourage parallel generation development in Ontario. This policy also provides clear direction to Ontario Hydro as it develops its preferred demand/supply plan, which I expect to receive this fall.

The development of our parallel generation resources will benefit Ontario in a number of ways.

The parallel production of electricity will strengthen our provincial economy by providing a secure source of safe, reliable and relatively low-cost electricity.

Parallel generation projects help to protect our environment by making use of renewable resources and energy-efficient processes such as cogeneration, or the simultaneous production of heat and electricity.

Lead times to bring on parallel generation projects are shorter and capital costs are much lower than for large-scale developments. These factors help to maintain rates at the lowest feasible level for consumers.

Such smaller-scale projects add flexibility and diversity to the province’s electricity system.

They also stimulate economic development by creating new jobs and new business. This is particularly true in northern Ontario, where much parallel generation potential exists.

Finally, the government’s endorsement of parallel generation serves to support the ongoing development of a strong, indigenous and exportable Ontario industry.

Ontario Hydro will continue to be the primary supplier of electricity for the province. However, the government believes that the private sector also has a contribution to make towards supplying Ontario’s electricity requirements.

I am pleased to tell the members of this House that Ontario Hydro is supportive of parallel generation. The chairman and president, Bob Franklin, has made a commitment to work closely with the industry to ensure the timely and efficient development of these resources.

As part of the policy I am announcing today, I am asking Hydro to advance its target dates for achieving increases in parallel generation. The original goal was 1,000 additional megawatts of parallel generation capacity by the year 2000. We are now asking for that target to be met by 1995 and asking for an additional 1,000 megawatts by the year 2000. In other words, Ontario Hydro is being asked to double the amount of additional parallel generation capacity it was originally intending to achieve by the end of the century.

If these goals are achieved, as I fully expect they will be, parallel generators will be meeting as much as 10 per cent of our electricity needs by the year 2000. This will be a significant contribution indeed to our electricity supply system.

This new policy also ensures that increases in parallel generation capacity will not be at the expense of Ontario ratepayers. Ontario Hydro will pay no more for power from independent producers than it would otherwise pay to build equivalent new facilities. As the parallel generation industry matures, the costs of independent power can be expected to fall, which will help to keep rates down.

The policy also provides for an early public review of Hydro’s proposed method of determining its avoided costs. My staff are now working out review procedures and terms of reference so that all interested parties will have a full opportunity to make their views known. We expect that the review will take place this fall. The recommendations arising out of this review will guide Ontario Hydro in establishing appropriate purchase rates for parallel-generated power.

Our policy on parallel generation is an important step towards meeting our goal of ensuring that Ontario’s energy requirements are met in a timely fashion.

Allow me to point out in closing that today’s announcement is the result of comprehensive consultation with many players in the energy field. In particular, I would like to thank the Non-Utility Generation Advisory Committee which helped to formulate this policy.

As we work to ensure that our electricity needs are met, we will continue the consultation process. All of us have a stake in our energy future. I want to invite further involvement by the public and energy interest groups as we shape the best possible energy future for Ontario.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES / SERVICES DE TRAITEMENT CORRECTIONNELS

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am pleased to announce an important initiative today to be undertaken by my ministry in the area of clinical treatment and rehabilitation services for francophone offenders.

J’ai le plaisir d’annoncer que le ministère des Services correctionnels entend mettre sur pied un important projet relatif au traitement et à la réadaptation des contrevenants francophones.

Treatment and rehabilitation for offenders continues to be a major priority for the Ministry of Correctional Services. A great many offenders suffer from psychological or psychiatric impairment or from behavioural disorders. In many cases, contact with ministry professionals is the very first time their condition is identified and dealt with.

In keeping with this goal, it gives me great pleasure to announce the addition of a 16-bed francophone treatment unit to the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.

À cet égard, c’est avec plaisir que je fais l’annonce de la construction, au Centre de détention d’Ottawa-Carleton, d’une unité de traitement pour francophones, comprenant seize lits.

The unit will offer French-speaking offenders a range of programs including anger management, substance abuse counselling and short-term treatment, and assessment of psychiatric, psychological and behavioural disorders. This new program will augment the existing network of treatment services, including the ministry’s regional treatment centres. It will also demonstrate the ministry’s commitment to meeting francophone offenders’ needs throughout the province, but particularly in this case in eastern Ontario.

The goal of providing treatment services in French in designated areas of the province was identified in my ministry’s French-language services plan.

The plan was drafted in accordance with the requirements of Bill 8 and it will ensure that the Ministry of Correctional Services meets the act’s implementation date of November 1989.

A two-stage renovation plan has been developed. The first, which will begin shortly, involves a $60,000 conversion of dormitory space to a treatment unit complete with beds for 16 inmates, a counselling room and three offices. The unit is expected to be operational by late fall.

The second stage, an 800-square-foot addition, will accommodate a clinical area and three professional offices. At an estimated cost of $140,000, this construction phase of the project will begin in the winter with expected completion by the spring of 1990.

I am also pleased to announce that the ministry will soon be advertising for professional staff to operate the new francophone treatment unit, including a psychologist, a psychometrist and a social worker.

This important initiative is another indication of the Ministry of Correctional Services’ support for this government’s commitment to French-language services.

The ministry is on

schedule in implementing the French Language Services Act, enabling francophone offenders to receive treatment and rehabilitation in their own language.

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

Hon Mr Kerrio: I would like to inform the House that an additional 296 people have been evacuated from the remote Indian community of Bearskin Lake. A forest fire was started by lightning two days ago southwest of the Bearskin Lake community in northwestern Ontario. The fire is now approximately 1,000 hectares in size.

Tuesday night, 87 people were evacuated from Bearskin Lake, southeast to the Big Trout Lake Indian community. These people included the elderly, the infirm, pregnant women and people with breathing problems. My ministry’s fire-fighting staff decided, for safety reasons, to order the additional evacuation.

There immediate fire threat to the community, but smoke in the village was very heavy yesterday afternoon and it may worsen today. We decided to evacuate the community in case the smoke became too heavy to safely transport the residents.

Today’s evacuation began at nine o’clock this morning. A Department of National Defence Hercules airplane transported a total of 268 residents approximately 425 kilometres south to Balmertown, which is northeast of the town of Red Lake. At the same time a Hawker Siddeley 748 flew 28 residents to the Big Trout Lake Indian community.

My ministry is co-ordinating all firefighting efforts in the area. We are working closely with 50 Bearskin Lake residents who have remained behind to help fight the fire. There are currently five Ministry of Natural Resources firefighting crews, 16 extra firefighters and 11 MNR fire managers and resource staff working to contain the fire. I would like to thank the defence department and the people of Balmertown for their co-operation.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to protecting human life and property against forest fires. Our expert district and fire management staff had the foresight to effectively handle a difficult situation and our fire crews are doing an outstanding job in responding quickly and effectively.

RESPONSES

PARALLEL GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY

Mr Charlton: I am rising to respond to the statement that the Minister of Energy (Mr Wong) made this afternoon regarding parallel generation policy. The minister’s statement reflects a small, meek, cautious and therefore inadequate step forward. It is a step forward, but to put it into perspective, the minister has announced here today, in a fashion that makes his announcement sound powerful, that he is forcing Ontario Hydro to double its commitment to parallel generation between now and the year 2000.

To put that into perspective, that is forcing Ontario Hydro to increase its projections for parallel generation from 10 per cent of the identified potential, from studies by his own ministry and others, to 20 percent of the potential that sits out there unused.

It is a very cautious and a completely inadequate approach, albeit a small step in the right direction. The minister also does not seem to understand the importance of the hearings and review around the question of avoiding cost -- the price that Hydro will pay for independent generation. He has announced today that that review will commence some time this fall, but he does not seem to understand the importance of the conclusions and the findings of that review to the whole process around Hydro’s preferred plan, which will be tabled this fall.

People at the Ontario Energy Board are sitting champing at the bit waiting to proceed with this review. Why is the minister delaying this review unfit some time this fall when it could proceed right now? We are extremely disappointed to ream, for example, that it is our understanding that Mr Franklin, the president of Hydro, personally intervened to ensure that this review would not occur until after his preferred plan was tabled. That is just an inappropriate and inadequate approach to a very important topic.

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

Mr Hampton: I am responding to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) on the evacuation at Bearskin Lake. From the perspective of my party we want to say that we are glad that loss of life has been avoided and we are pleased that people are being protected from this fire. However, I do not think the Ministry of Natural Resources deserves any congratulations in this instance. The fact of the matter is that this is, I believe, the fourth native community to be evacuated in northwestern Ontario this spring.

It is fine to say that people have been taken out of the way of the fire, but the fact of the matter is that when these fires are allowed to burn, and they have, there is an impact upon the livelihood of the people of those communities. The impact is that their lives in terms of certainty and security are threatened. The impact is that the hunting, fishing and trapping that they depend on are very much threatened by these forest fires.

The fact of the matter is that if the response for other communities, say small white communities in northwestern Ontario, was to always evacuate, that would be an unsatisfactory response and people would tell the minister that.

Is it not about time that the Ministry of Natural Resources put in place trained fire teams in all of these communities so that there was better response, instead of using native people as sort of fill-ins on regular firefighting crews? It is about time that that happened.

I also want to say for the minister’s benefit that without the phonetic spelling, it is indeed Balmertown. All he needed to do was check with us and we would have told him how to pronounce the name.

SERVICES DE TRAITEMENT CORRECTIONNELS / CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

M. B. Rae: J’aimerais féliciter, au nom de notre parti, le gouvernement d’avoir pris cette initiative pour améliorer les services disponibles au centre de traitement. Cela représente pour nous un exemple du travail rendu absolument nécessaire par le projet de loi 8 et l’obligation légale du gouvernement ; mais il n’est pas seulement question d’obligation légale, il est aussi question de notre devoir envers la population francophone de la province.

J’espère que nous allons aussi pouvoir attaquer le problème de la formation professionnelle, afin de pouvoir former des gens qui seront en mesure d’offrir les services nécessaires, non seulement aux contrevenants de cette institution, mais dans toutes les institutions de la province.

Mr Cureatz: I would like to first respond to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Ramsay) in regard to his news release on the construction of a treatment unit for francophones at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.

I would like to say that it would probably be more appropriate for my colleagues the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) to respond in French, which I am not able to do. But that is not to say that we are not congratulative in terms of his announcement.

I know from working with the ministry since our sojourn into opposition in 1985 that it is a difficult ministry the minister has -- I think we have talked about this before -- because it is tough for him to get in line when he is speaking with the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) for the kinds of funds that are needed to ensure that the various treatments would be made available.

I think his ministry, unfortunately, from time to time has always been set back in the far corner, due to the demands of the various other more high-profile ministries. Obviously he and his staff have been working away, and I know my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) would be supportive of this initiative of which we are very appreciative. I migh