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

February 22, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L151 - Wed 22 Feb 1989 / Mer 22 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICES

LANDFILL SITE

ONTARIO HERITAGE WEEK

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

NURSING SERVICES

USE OF MINISTRY AFFILIATION

RETAIL SALES TAX ON COINS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

HOMES FOR THE AGED

HAZARDOUS WASTES

PETITIONS

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT (CONTINUED)

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) some serious problems affecting the present GO Transit service bringing commuters into downtown Toronto.

The Georgetown line is one example. The GO train is frequently five to 10 minutes late getting into the second station, Brampton, which results in a delay getting into Union Station. This frequently makes many downtown workers late for work. When they complain to GO Transit, they all get the same answer and are urged to write to GO Transit. They never get a response from GO Transit to these letters.

They know that GO Transit rents the rail line from the Canadian National Railway; however, they feel that the minister and GO Transit should make CN and their employees more aware that commuters’ jobs are in jeopardy if GO trains do not get priority on the rail lines into Union Station in rush hours. The minister may have to renegotiate the agreement with CN to ensure this priority.

There is also a problem with the GO bus from Burlington to Hamilton. I have complaints that the bus driver will not wait even a few minutes for the train to arrive, but just drives off at his scheduled time leaving passengers to wait for up to 30 minutes for another bus. This means a double load of passengers for the next bus.

Will the minister investigate these complaints, in view of his recent speech to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto about his keen interest in good commuter service by GO Transit?

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Cousens: It is time that this no-walls, no-barriers Liberal government faced up to the facts. In reality, it is a closed-door, pass-the-buck administration.

The latest example of the Liberals’ unwillingness to deal with the people of Ontario openly and truthfully is the refusal of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) to meet with the citizens of the town of Vaughan. These citizens are distressed about the upcoming hearings for the expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site, which is right in the middle of their municipality. They were to meet with the minister today to discuss their concerns, but at the last minute he cancelled the meeting.

We have a waste management crisis in this province. It is incumbent upon all ministers of the crown to ensure that any related issues falling within their jurisdictions are dealt with in the most open and expeditious manner.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs’ refusal to meet with the people of Vaughan is another example of the province’s hands-off attitude towards the waste management crisis. Even the appointment of Gardner Church to head the greater Toronto authority is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This authority has promised little in the way of concrete action. Mr. Church has made it clear that his role is merely one of consultation and co-ordination. He will not be offering any provincial resources to aid in solving the waste management crisis we are facing in Ontario today.

It is clear that this no-walls, no-barriers rhetoric is just that, full of empty promises.

ONTARIO HERITAGE WEEK

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of members of this House a special Ontario Heritage Week celebration which I attended in my riding last night. The 26th Girl Guide unit of St. Catharines and the Pathfinders met at the Burleigh Hill school in honour of heritage week. Here they put together a history-in-the-making box to be displayed at the St. Catharines Historical Museum. The box contained letters the girls addressed to their grandchildren, pictures of people and places making the news today, as well as numerous other items which depict what life is like in 1989.

A representative from the St. Catharines museum was present to speak to the guides about early settlers in the area and brought period costumes for the girls to try on to get a feeling of what was involved with the traditional dress at that time.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend Shiela Morra, leader of the 26th Girl Guide unit, and her assistant, Wanda Derda; Jean Westlake, leader of the Pathfinders; Girl Guide Commissioner Maureen McGeorge, and Brigitta Carr from the St. Catharines museum for their planning and participation in such an event, which serves to remind and enlighten these young girls what our heritage means to us, how we can preserve it and, most important, the understanding that it is an integral part of our lives.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: There is little doubt that the public response to hearings on Bill 162 has been overwhelming. Last week the clerk of the standing committee on resources development reported that she had received 612 requests for standing before the committee. Under the original hearings schedule, that means only about 340 groups would be heard. Each of these will be limited to 20- and 30-minute presentations.

Given that information and given the fact that the committee will already have to reschedule the hearings as the House continues to sit, I moved the following motion last Wednesday: first, that all groups wishing to be heard should be accommodated, and second, that the hearings should take place when the House was not in session, as was originally planned.

The six Liberal members on that committee voted against that motion. In spite of the fact that the bill would dramatically affect injured workers in this province, the Liberals refused to guarantee that everyone would be heard.

On Monday my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) questioned the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) on this matter. The minister replied, “If my friend the member for Hamilton East can show me one occasion in this House when a standing committee...decided to have hearings until every single deputant was heard, then I will be terribly surprised.”

The minister should be terribly surprised and embarrassed. He was here in 1985 when the standing committee on social development held hearings on Bill 30. Everyone was heard. Over 900 presentations were made before the committee and there was not a 20- or 30-minute deadline. If it was good enough for the government to hear everyone in 1985, then it should be good enough now. Everyone should be heard on Bill 162.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: This world-class metropolis is in the grip of a world-class traffic crisis and, frankly, there is little hope in sight. During this week’s conference of the Ontario Good Roads Association, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) finally admitted that the traffic problem of Metro Toronto is an area of major concern.

The stress of congestion is taking an enormous toll on productivity and the quality of family life. A study commissioned by the minister, released in the fall of 1987, states that travelling on congestion-free highways is a prime concern for Ontario motorists.

Over the past 25 years, the growth in daily trips on roads in the greater Metro area has increased some 150 per cent. Travel in and out of Metro often takes two to three times longer than several years ago. Desperately needed road repairs and reconstruction are needed for many of our arterial routes. Yet what has been the minister’s answer to these concerns? “We have no new money for roads.”

The Liberal member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) was bragging in the Ottawa Citizen and saying that Ottawa-Carleton will receive road grants and transit subsidies worth $312 per person this fiscal year, and Metro Toronto is receiving $140 per person.

The road allocations for greater Metro Toronto are not enough to do it and yet the Ottawa MPPs are bragging about what they are getting there. There has to be some inequity going on here, and it is time the minister started putting money where it really counts.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Mr. McGuinty: The current controversy surrounding the theory regarding oriental, white and black genetic differences put forth by University of Western Ontario psychologist Professor Rushton has raised questions not only in the academic community but also in the community at large.

Politicians have been admonished, in fact chastised, for deigning to comment and indeed have been warned by academics to refrain from entering the debate, perhaps in the interest of maintaining universities’ freedom from political pressure.

Others have asked for government intervention, but perhaps politicians may be permitted to state some of the questions which call for clarification by the academic community.

There are questions with regard to the following: academic freedom and tenure and their attendant rights and responsibilities; evaluation of research, support sources and methods, and the empirical credibility of resulting theories; and criticism of those outside universities by goings-on within.

The university is a social institution with societal responsibilities. Questions of this kind should be appropriately answered by the academic community. The community at large looks with hopeful expectancy for clarification at the forthcoming meeting on March 2 of the senate committee at the University of Western Ontario, at which there will be put forth a motion to reaffirm the university’s commitment “to academic freedom and its attendant rights and responsibilities.”

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am perturbed that there is no statement forthcoming in the House today from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) about this new policy on standardized tests which is reported in the Toronto Star today.

The minister seems to be moving away from a position which said that these would be used only to evaluate the system, and he is now saying that these tests will be used to effectively look at remediation for individual students of grade schools in Ontario -- a major change of policy of which we have heard nothing more than what has already been said in the Star. I, for one, would like to have some clarification as to whether the minister has changed his mind on this point.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday, in answer to some requests, the minister tabled what I think most of us would feel is probably the most extensive media list of partisan propaganda ever put out by a cabinet minister in newspaper and radio ads across the province, amounting to a little less than $150,000, with respect to a partisan government bill which is not yet even law in this province. That is nearly $150,000 of partisan Liberal Party propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of this province with regard to a bill on workers’ compensation which is not yet even law.

I wonder if the minister can explain to this House why he would have spent taxpayers’ dollars on partisan Liberal Party propaganda at a time when that bill is not yet even the law of the land.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to advise the Leader of the Opposition, the expenditure of some $150,000 was used to create brochures that set out the details of Bill 162 and those brochures were made available to every single member of this House to use in response to inquiries arising from Bill 162.

As the member can well imagine, the Ministry of Labour received several hundred requests for information on Bill 162. We found it more expeditious to have a simple, standardized information sheet that was sent out to those who inquired about the bill, setting out the details of the bill and how it would change the workers’ compensation system.

Mr. B. Rae: In addition to the brochures, there was the most extensive campaign on radio ever launched by a government prior to a bill becoming law. I cannot remember a time, save for when Trudeau brought in the Constitution back in 1980, when a government has decided to take upon itself a propaganda campaign on the airwaves in advance of that bill’s even becoming law and in advance of its being approved in the Legislature.

I would like to ask the minister a second question: I have here a pretty picture of the minister, if that is not a contradiction in terms. It appears under a headline in Italian about Bill 162. There is a complete discussion of the positive effects of Bill 162, and it is in a publication that is published by the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot guess at the number of times the minister has stated in this House that the Workers’ Compensation Board is at arm’s length from him, that he is not responsible for all the screwups in the WCB, that he is not responsible for all the workers who get shafted by the WCB --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: In addition to his own partisan advertisements, which he has yet to explain satisfactorily to the House, I wonder if the minister can tell us why the Workers’ Compensation Board is now being recruited into this partisan Liberal Party campaign in an effort to sell Bill 162.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will pass on the comments about the pretty picture, although I have not seen it.

As for the rest of the

preamble to my friend’s question, it is just absolute and patent nonsense. With respect to the information clip that was on the radio, he describes it as an extensive campaign. The radio clip went something like this: “The government of Ontario is introducing amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act. If you would like information on this act, you may get that information by writing to the following address.” If that is an extensive advertising campaign, I will eat the picture that my friend over there is talking about.

I really cannot comment on the

article published in a document from the Workers’ Compensation Board. I have not seen it, I do not know who wrote it and I do not know what it says.

Mr. B. Rae: Just so the minister knows, because he has not told the House completely accurately what is in the radio ad, it says, “The Ontario government has made proposals in the Legislature to change workers’ compensation so that help for injured workers will be more fair and effective.”

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is true.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier says it is true; I say it is not true. Why the hell should taxpayers be paying to listen to the Premier’s personal point of view with respect to workers’ compensation? Why should we be paying for Liberal Party propaganda on workers’ compensation?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Stuff it down his throat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a final supplementary?

Mr. B.

Rae: By way of final supplementary, can the minister explain why it is that when his government and the taxpayers of the province are financing Liberal Party propaganda, asking workers to get hold of the act and make their views known -- which was the case for the campaign that took place in the month of December -- can the minister explain to me why it is that literally hundreds -- not just a few but hundreds -- of injured workers, injured workers’ groups, trade unions and representatives of working people across this province are being told by the Liberal majority on the standing committee on resources development that there is no room for them at the hearing table, that there is no time or space for them?

If it is good enough for --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: To go back to the radio ads for a minute, if my memory serves me well, I think the total budget for radio announcements about the availability of the pamphlet describing the bill was in the neighbourhood of some $25,000 or $30,000. I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Pouliot: More like $59,000.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Lake Nipigon says $59,000. That, if I recall the figures correctly, is a fraction of the mailing costs that come out of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, also paid for by the taxpayers of this province. I do not think that either expenditure is objectionable.

Mr. Wildman: What about yours?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You want us to pay for radio ads.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Hold on a second, I say to my friend the member for Scarborough West. Just to make a point about --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they want to hear the answer, but I am going to try anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to make a point about the hearings, my understanding is that the committee is still committed to six weeks of public hearings in virtually every corner of the province.

My understanding is that the view of the Liberal members is that every step should be taken to accommodate as many groups as possible that want to have an opportunity to make submissions before the committee, and that the committee, obviously, will pay attention to every written brief that is submitted.

I understand that suggestions have been made that the committee consider sitting into the evening and on Friday as well and that the purpose that the Liberal members have on that committee is to accommodate as many groups as possible during those six weeks of hearings. I certainly support that position of the committee.

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

Mr. B. Rae: If it is good enough for doctors on extra billing, to listen to them, why don’t you listen to workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have you a new question?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: This is a question to the Premier. I noticed with interest yesterday the Premier’s comments to the press. He was not here yesterday, but he was commenting to the press on the subject of auto insurance. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why it is that in some provinces, which have similar requirements with respect to a lack of discrimination with regard to age, those same provinces are still able to offer a discount to good drivers. The Premier will know that the vast majority of seniors fall into that category.

Why could he not have pushed for and why could not the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board have in place a system which would ensure that drivers with a clean driving record for a period of time would indeed have a discount the way seniors up until now have had a discount?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) can help my friend with that question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I ask questions and then you don’t answer them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, ask decent questions.

Mr. B. Rae: But you want to be in charge of that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Somebody has to.

Mr. Breaugh: Good to see you back.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not unpleasant to be here.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think there is any point answering the question until they are finished chatting.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I like a real jury.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How was it in the stocks?

Mr. Speaker: I guess we will wait, once again, until the Attorney General and other members get finished.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman asked the question about whether or not there are advantages to having a good driver’s record under the system announced by the board. I can tell the honourable gentleman, in fact, that is the case. He has picked on one of the essential parts of the class plan and its items, which is an essential part of a fairness across the system as it applies rates.

He will know that there will be a particular application of surcharges to those people who have experienced convictions or claims over the course of their driving careers, and that, I think, is the way that a lot of people would like it to be; that is, that the bad drivers will pay higher rates. That is what is happening as we look at the introduction of a new system.

The honourable gentleman would like the people of the province to know, I am sure, that this is the first time, in North American experience anyway and perhaps around the world, that we have introduced simultaneously a rate-setting system together with a new class plan system, which accomplishes two things. First, it takes the mystery out of what components are used by companies to put together rates; and second, it sets a fairness with respect to risk as it goes from one territory to the other around the province.

Mr. B. Rae: What the government has accomplished is that people who were paying $800 a year one month are going to be paying $900 a year the next month. That is the miracle the government has wrought.

I want to go back to the question I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson), because I do not think the minister heard the question. He certainly was not answering the question I put to the Premier. There are provinces which have a nondiscriminatory rule with respect to age. Those same provinces also have discounts, not average rates but specific discounts, for drivers who have had no convictions over a given period of time.

Why was that not put forward by the minister to the board as a policy statement by this government? He must have known that it would specifically benefit seniors and others who will be hurt by increases, thanks to the Liberal government’s actions with regard to insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Why is he not urging the board to put it in place now? He can issue a policy statement this afternoon asking the board to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already asked two questions. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The issue of implementation of something like what is called the bonus-malus system of insurance coverage is, of course, very interesting to us as a government. It is something that we have followed with a great deal of interest, and the issue of long-time accident- and claim-free driving records is extremely interesting to us as we review the opportunities that are available to us.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that, from my point of view, we have the essential features of the beginnings of such a bonus-type system or bonus-malus system in the way the plan is structured now, by ensuring that people who are bad drivers after the initial adjustment occurs will suffer surcharges on the basis of bad driving experience. That, I think, is important for everybody in the province to understand. In fact, I have received comments from around the province which really indicate support for the idea of surcharging those people who do have bad records.

I would think that while the honourable gentleman was on his feet and saying that some premiums may go from $800 to $900 per year, he would have noted that, from the examples given in the report that was filed and put forward in the public forum by the board, some people will see $4,000 yearly premiums reduced to around $2,500. He does not want to say that --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elston: -- because he does not want to indicate that there is fairness in the system.

Mr. B. Rae: If you are a senior now in Scarborough and you have a senior citizens’ discount, your rate is discounted 20 per cent from what would be the normal rate, the benchmark rate now. The board has proposed increases which would take that figure up at least 18 per cent from that average rate. The minister will surely understand that what, in effect, the board is proposing for that senior is a net increase of somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent. depending on where he fits in.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: That is a very substantial increase for that particular senior. That rate is coming down the pipe this next couple of weeks. Can the minister tell us why he would not today issue a policy statement, which he is allowed to do under the legislation, and ask the board to reopen its rate-setting exercise with respect to the question of people who are driving --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable gentleman for his example in Scarborough and I would like to commend to him the reading of the balance of the report, which talks about the decreases that will occur for the same senior consumer in some other places, like Thunder Bay and Timmins, areas that lie outside the area he talked about.

Mr. B. Rae: They won’t get a decrease if they’ve had a discount.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The fellow who just asked the question and who continues to chirp away on the other side of the House has refused to acknowledge the fact that the implementation of the new plan classification system will mean that the basic level of premiums being charged will in fact decrease for a good number of people outside the area of Metropolitan Toronto.

While I acknowledge that there will be some increases and some adjustment upwards in some centres in Metropolitan Toronto, it is not without the advantages I have indicated earlier by decreasing for those others in the province.

The other thing that the honourable gentleman should know is that not all seniors participate in discount-type insurance programs. He should acknowledge that as well as he tries to lead everybody to believe that every senior in the province will suffer high increases. It is not so and he should not try to make it so.

Mr. Runciman: I remind members that all parties in this House knew that seniors were going to get it in the neck 18 months ago.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why didn’t you say something then?

Mr. Runciman: I did.

My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Last week, George Whitcombe, a 74-year-old senior living in Hamilton, phoned the minister’s office to inquire about how his auto insurance premium may be affected by the new risk classification system being implemented by the government. Mr. Whitcombe was told by someone in the minister’s office, quite bluntly I might add, that he should hang up and call the Minister of Financial Institutions.

The minister said yesterday, “I am working very closely with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions to bring to him the concerns that are brought forward to me by seniors as individuals and by seniors’ groups across the province, so we can have an opportunity to discuss those actual rates.”

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Runciman: Clearly, the message being sent to seniors by the minister’s response is: “Don’t call me. Call someone else. I’m too busy.”

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Runciman: My question is: If seniors cannot get the minister even to talk to them, let alone acknowledge the existence of an auto insurance problem, just who can they turn to?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I think it would be very valuable for the member opposite, as well as other members in the House, to know that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has set up a hotline so that seniors and other people who are interested in getting the facts may phone and get those facts very quickly from people with the technical knowledge to give that information quickly.

Mr. Runciman: The gentleman I mentioned earlier, George Whitcombe, has been notified by his insurance company that his rates will rise by some 13.5 percent, effective March 1, 1989. He has no claims or convictions and drives an average of 50 miles per month.

Yesterday, the minister suggested to seniors that they ignore the rates being published in the media because they are based on speculation. In the case of Mr. Whitcombe, so much for speculation. This 74-year-old, fixed-income senior will see his rates rise by nearly double the benchmark that her government talks about so lovingly. In effect, his rates will rise almost in step with taxicab rates, cars that are driven 24 hours a day, not 50 miles per month.

Does the minister think it is fair that seniors will be made to pay the same rate increases being slapped on taxicabs and, if not, what steps does she plan to take to address the situation?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I think it important that the member opposite should know that any figures that are being discussed today are merely speculation. The 170 insurance companies across the province will file their formulas with the auto insurance board by March 15. The insurance board will then review those formulas to determine that they fit the criteria of the new legislation. The rates will then be published following that period of time.

Many seniors across the province will receive decreases in their insurance. There will be adjustments, particularly in large urban centres, which will involve some increases to seniors. The actual figures we will not know until later in the year.

My suggestion to seniors is to wait until the facts come out. There will be adjustments; seniors will be part of those adjustments. I believe that we can work very fairly with the groups to be sure that they do have the facts and that they are able to inform their members of those.

Mr. Runciman: This is the minister’s first real test and, regrettably, she has failed it badly.

Yesterday, the minister said that I was trying to alarm seniors over high insurance rate increases, that my comments were pure speculation. She has said it again today.

During a television interview this past weekend, the chairman of the auto insurance board, John Kruger, said: “A senior in Scarborough will pay about 18 per cent more. That’s the price one pays for eliminating age,” and went on to express concern about people on fixed incomes. So much for speculation.

The chairman of the board confirms significant increases for seniors and the minister insists upon a do-nothing attitude. Is she finally prepared to acknowledge the problem and to advocate changes that will ensure fair treatment for seniors? Is she finally prepared to do something?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am very happy to report that there was a good meeting held yesterday between the members of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario and myself. They brought forward their concerns. They have some genuine concerns that their members are bringing to them.

I have been meeting, of course, with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions, as well as with the members of the auto insurance board. Two of those nine members, as a matter of fact, happen to be senior citizens. They are listening very carefully to those concerns.

It is worth noting that today many insurance firms offer no discounts to senior citizens. I think one of the real values of this exercise will be that the rates will be published for everyone in the province, so that seniors and others can check in the book and determine what the competition is offering. Then, if there is someone who is offering a lower rate, consumers will have the opportunity to go to that company and get the most appropriate rate for them. I see that as being an advantage to all insurance consumers across the province.

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to stand down a question to the Minister of Education who will be here in a few moments. I will stand it down if I can.

Mr. Speaker: Are all members agreed?

Mr. Villeneuve: Here he comes.

Mr. Speaker: The member may put his question now.

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

Mr. Jackson: Like all persons in Ontario concerned about the quality of education, we read with interest the headline in this morning’s Toronto Star, “Standardized Tests Coming for Grade Schoolers.”

We all have our own opinions as to what standardized tests are, but the minister states in the

article and he further clarifies that the purpose of these is not to fail students, but to help identify students at risk so that he can provide the necessary supports to ensure what many have come to call equality of outcomes for students.

Can the minister please tell us, after he has done all these tests, what is his plan in order to ensure that these programs are made available to these at-risk students? Will the province be paying for those or will he be passing that on to the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to thank the member for his question. As he knows, over the course of the past three or four years, there have been a number of studies and reports done on Ontario’s education system, not the least of which was the report of the select committee on education, which I will be responding to in the very near future.

One of the things that has been clearly brought to light is the fact that many students have encountered difficulty in the system and come at risk at a very, very early age. Students who lack sufficient proficiency in the basic skill areas are the ones who are most likely to eventually drop out.

We are looking at developing a mechanism of assessing each and every student in this province. Some of that will be done, I am sure, by way of appropriate diagnostic assessment instruments; some of that will be done through the professional judgement of classroom teachers.

As a result of testing and assessment at regular intervals, I believe we will be able to identify those students who need the most help. I believe that we will be able to put in place appropriate plans for specific remediation initiatives at every step through the process.

Mr. Jackson: My question to the minister was about who is going to pay for the aftermath of this standardized testing experience which, by his own agenda, will occur just prior to the next provincial election. Of course, all people involved in education in Ontario have a healthy respect for the promises that he has made and the promises he delivers around election times. That is why I want the minister to focus, if he would, on the question I am asking him about funding.

Who is going to pay for this? The point is that when he promised a 20:1 ratio in the primary division, he promised one formula before the election, but he funded at a much lower rate after the election. Will the minister please tell those in education today and this House who is going to ay for these programs that will result after he has done this testing?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Jackson: Will they be provincially funded --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: -- or will they have to come out of municipalities?

Mr. Speaker: That is the third time for the same question.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Again, I am delighted the member raised the specific issue in terms of the kinds of commitments we have made over the years and the extent to which we have fulfilled those commitments. I remind the member that back in 1987 we gave a commitment to reduce class sizes in the primary grades because we recognize, and I think most people in the educational community recognize and would concede, that greater individual attention can certainly have the most impact, particularly in the primary years.

The member knows full well that we fully funded that initiative. Indeed, the member would probably concede that through the throne speech initiative we even went beyond the commitment given during the election campaign. Not only did we provide the additional funds for those boards to hire additional teachers to reduce their pupil-teacher ratios, but we went beyond that and provided additional funds to boards that had already fulfilled that commitment, that already had lower pupil-teacher ratios in those primary grades, and we allocated additional money to be committed to other initiatives in the primary division.

I am glad he raised the issue because I know the member will be the first to admit that not only did we meet that commitment given in 1987, but we have exceeded it and fully funded it.

Mr. Jackson: The minister knows he did not fund according to his election promise. In fact, the 14-point educational program of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has not materialized with the dollars being transferred from his government. The fact is that the minister’s statement about standardized tests and what it implies to Ontario schools is the first window we have as to how he is going to be campaigning on education issues two and a half years from now.

The minister is carefully avoiding the question, but I will ask him one more time. If the minister is planning for the future of Ontario’s educational needs and he is going to put an overlay of standardized tests in place, who is going to pay for those programs? Will it be the province or will he pass it on to municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I truly believe the residents of this province, as taxpayers and electors, can judge the extent to which we have met our commitments in education and the extent to which we have funded our commitments. The member points out we have not provided the funds or the amount of funding that was indicated in that initiative. I am not sure how the member can say that when he knows full well that the increase in funding to school boards in this province since 1987 is in excess of an additional $500 million, not including the capital side, to help boards in delivering effective programs.

I recognize full well that the most important component of any diagnostic assessment mechanism will be the kinds of initiatives we can take within our schools, the kinds of initiatives we can take provincially to provide remediation. I will look forward very much to sharing with the member some of those ideas in the very near future.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. Two months ago, Eleanor Barnes, who lives in La Salle, which is between Amherstburg and Windsor, was told she needed coronary bypass surgery. She was given a surgery date at the University Hospital in London of from five to six weeks and subsequently was rescheduled until July. Concerned that she might not live long enough to have that surgery, she made arrangements, as people do, in Detroit to have the surgery completed, but while shopping in Taylor, Michigan, she suffered three heart attacks on February 12 and had the bypass surgery done almost immediately thereafter in Taylor, Michigan.

I want to ask the minister why she is still not moving on the shortage of critical care nurses all over this province.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, I am aware of the case the member has raised. My colleague from Windsor brought that to my attention. I can tell him that anyone who finds himself in an emergency situation outside this province is covered fully by the Ontario health insurance plan.

Mr. Reville: I think what the minister has just told us is that she is not going to do anything about the shortage of critical care nurses. She is going to give people an airline

schedule and have them fly to Detroit or Taylor, Michigan.

The minister’s colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), told Mrs. Barnes that the reasons she could not get earlier surgery in London were the shortage of critical care nurses and budgetary cutbacks. That is what her colleague said.

Will the minister perhaps go and talk to her colleague, find out that there is a shortage of nurses not only in Toronto, as she keeps saying, but throughout the province and then get on with the job of doing something about it? Eleanor Barnes is awfully lucky to be here today.

Mr. Speaker: That is a good, straightforward question. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Once again, I correct the member and the impression he is leaving with members in this House and with the public. There have been no cutbacks in any of the hospital budgets. Every budget of every hospital in this province has increased. In fact, since 1985, hospital base budgets have increased by $2 billion, from $3.9 billion to $6 billion this year. That is an increase of some 50 per cent in this province. I think it is very important for us to be absolutely clear: There have been no cuts in hospital budgets, only increases.

USE OF MINISTRY AFFILIATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet regarding Ministry of Housing staff involvement with the nongovernment Advanced Card Technology Association of Canada. The minister may recall that I raised this subject with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) on Monday.

Can the Chairman of Management Board confirm what I was advised by members of his ministry, namely, that, one, no report has ever been submitted to Management Board with respect to the Smart card concept; and two, that no ministries have requested funding from Management Board either to pursue this initiative or even to undertake a pilot project on the Smart card technology? Can the Chairman of Management Board confirm that for me today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: To my knowledge, there has not been an official report to Management Board with respect to the Smart card issue, although I am certainly quite aware of it, as are a number of my colleagues. With respect to requests for funding, I do not know of any that have come to Management Board. If my staff indicated none had come, then I would have to agree with that.

Mr. Harris: As Chairman of Management Board, the minister is responsible for ensuring that dollars paid by the public that are to be directed through various ministries for ministry programs are in fact spent for those programs and are spent properly.

Does the minister not have concerns with a deputy minister and a minister authorizing staff expenses, office space and telephones to embark on a program or activity that the minister herself acknowledged in a letter yesterday has nothing to do with the Ministry of Housing and is an activity on behalf of an association that is outside and apparently has nothing to do with the government itself? Does the minister not have concerns with that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman exaggerates, as he is wont to do in these days of leadership activity as he tries to compare himself favourably with the right-winger from Brockville, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), and the other right-winger, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

The honourable gentleman knows, if he reads the full issue put forward in the letter, that the Minister of Housing explained very clearly that in fact the gentleman about whom he raised the question was performing duties and types of activities that he assumed from his days with the Management Board of Cabinet, when he was looking at the opportunities available with respect to this particular project.

The gentleman was serving in a voluntary capacity. He had been asked to head up the association until the association itself got started. He has done a lot of work. He is very sensitive to the types of issues that have to be worked on and developed so that this association can get up and running on its own feet.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that he does a disservice to the person who has been mandated to do some studies and look into some of the advantages and opportunities that lie in front of us with respect to the so-called Smart card project. I can tell the honourable gentleman we are quite well aware of the level of interest of a number of people in the Smart card project. I have met with some people who, interestingly enough, are making use of variations of the Smart card in other areas of activity --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Elston: -- and I can tell the member that the activity level of this --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RETAIL SALES TAX ON COINS

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Treasurer. In 1983, the domestically produced Maple Leaf gold coin was exempted from retail sales tax with a goal of establishing a market niche for the then newly created bullion coin. All other precious metal coins, including its main competitor, the South African krugerrand, maintained their taxable status. In 1986, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruled that this exemption was in contravention of our trade obligations and the sales tax exemption was eliminated. Can the Treasurer update this Legislature on domestic sales and the effect of the sales tax on the coin before, during and after the exemption period.

Mr. Mackenzie: My, that’s a big question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is a very important question. I appreciate the honourable member giving me notice. The honourable member will realize that all provinces have a sales tax on gold coins except Alberta which, as we all know, does not have a sales tax, and what is more does not want one.

The point is that in 1983 the government of Ontario relieved the Canadian gold coin of sales tax in this province in order that it develop a market niche, which it certainly did. GATT internationally indicated that this was not permitted and that we had to take the tax off all coins or put it on all. For some reason, I decided, as Treasurer, to recommend that the tax be put on all gold coins.

Since then, the sales of the coins have not been seriously inhibited. The Maple Leaf gold coin is the world’s bestseller, representing 45 per cent of the world market for these coins. On that basis, it has kept in step with the production of gold in Ontario, which has increased over the years from 32.3 metric tonnes in 1985 to 57.9 metric tonnes this year, a 79 per cent increase, so you cannot say that the tax has interfered with the expansion of the sales of the coin.

Mr. Faubert: The Ontario Mining Association has recently requested the retail sales tax be removed from the gold coin to boost its domestic sales. As well, the Royal Canadian Mint has just introduced the silver bullion coin, which is also subject to sales tax. An exemption to all gold and silver coins could likely increase our demand by lowering the price and increasing their investment appeal. It seems this, in turn, would increase directly the demand for precious metals produced in Canada and directly benefit the Ontario mining industry, if this were done. I would like the Treasurer to advise the Legislature of his actual reasons for not exempting these precious metal coins.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the honourable member’s interest. To be perfectly frank, my real reason for not accepting it would be revenue. There is a person at the mining association I used to know reasonably well who mentions this to me from time to time. In this connection, the officials of Treasury have talked to the representatives of the mining association and also the governor of the mint as to what their prospects are. I think it would be inappropriate for me to say here, before the budget, what the outcome of that decision would be.

Right now, I am not filled with enthusiasm for the recommendation the honourable member has not really made, but which is inherent in his very useful question.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Jamieson Willis is a three-year-old lad in my riding with a single heart ventricle with multiple defects. Following a cardiac catheter procedure done at the Hospital for Sick Children on October 8, Jamieson’s mom was told that he needed an operation to live and that now was the best time. The operation was scheduled for February 21. She brought Jamieson to the hospital this past Sunday, and because of a slight cold and no beds was told it would be delayed another five days.

When she had not heard on Tuesday, she phoned the Hospital for Sick Children and was told it was now rescheduled to April 18, two months away. What help can the minister offer to Justine and Jamieson Willis?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me say that the Hospital for Sick Children is an excellent facility in Ontario and one we are all very proud of. They recognize that even a slight cold -- as a mother with children myself, I can tell the member that when a child is not feeling well, surgeons are very reluctant in their medical judgement to proceed with any medical procedure. That is always an influencing factor.

The Hospital for Sick Children is very sensitive to having to postpone any elective surgery for any children because of the trauma and the effect on the family. In fact, they do so only when there is an elective nature to that surgery, and as well only when there is an emergency or life-threatening situation that must be given priority.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will try to restrain myself. Mrs. Willis was at the meeting at the Hamilton Convention Centre when the health care community in Hamilton, a couple of thousand strong, told the minister what it thought of her stewardship. She told me she was amazed at the number of people with problems similar to the one she had. The meeting convinced her that she had to speak out. I suggest that either the minister resolve the situation, and I do not think it is elective for young Jamieson Willis, or that she be held responsible for his condition over the next few months in this province.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member opposite knows, I am not a physician. We rely on physicians to use their very best medical judgement to determine who is elective and who is in need of surgery on a priority basis. If the member would send me the details, I would be pleased to ask the Hospital for Sick Children, which stands accountable for the decisions of its staff, to get him the information as to this situation in particular. If he will give me those details, I would be pleased to investigate.

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I see the Liberal rump is going to be supporting me for my leadership bid in the upcoming --

Mr. Eves: This is going to be a whole new party.

Mr. Cureatz: Is the member for Parry Sound worried?

As the minister is aware, there is concern about the effects of electromagnetic fields that apparently take place around transmission lines and transformers and possibly in wiring in homes and office buildings. Investigations are presently at a preliminary stage with Ontario Hydro. Could the minister bring us up to date as to what stage Ontario Hydro is at in its investigation and when does he anticipate Ontario Hydro making its report on these findings?

Hon. Mr. Wong: That sounds like a leadership question and I wish to treat the honourable member’s question very seriously. I know this is a matter of deep concern to many citizens. I wish to assure all members that Ontario Hydro continues to monitor the effects of electromagnetic fields on people, whether they be workers, schoolchildren or people who live near these transmission lines or other devices that emit radiation. Let me assure the member that at present the Ontario Hydro utility builds transmission lines that comply with the World Health Organization guidelines and other generally accepted international standards.

With respect to the major study in which Ontario Hydro is engaged with Hydro-Québec and the French utility Electricité de France, Ontario Hydro is dedicating $3 million to this project. It should be completed in approximately 1993 and therefore I anticipate results at or around that time.

Mr. Cureatz: With the minister’s expression of concern about the problem we may be encountering and the investigation by Ontario Hydro, does he not think this would be another appropriate topic for the select committee on energy to be investigating, along with the demand-supply options study, this summer? Will he be recommending to his cabinet colleagues the continuation of the select committee on energy this summer to investigate the previous committee’s work and this new problem area that we should be seriously taking a look at?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The government is reviewing any role that the select committee on energy could take in the future. Certainly, this is one of the subjects that we will give serious consideration to.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Black: My question is to the Attorney General. In the report of the Task Force on Illegal Drug Use in Ontario, two of the recommendations dealt specifically with the Young Offenders Act. The first dealt with amendments to the privacy provisions of that act, to allow for consultations and discussions of a young offender’s case with persons directly involved in education, support or treatment.

Can the Attorney General inform the House if he has made any progress with his federal counterpart in relation to this recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question. His report has been recognized not only in this province, but beyond, as a very useful contribution to this subject.

The question of information dissemination which he raises has been raised by me at a number of conferences of attorneys general over the past three years as part of a package of amendments to the act that I have continually proposed. I regret to say that I have made no significant headway on that subject over the past three years.

The good news, however, is that over the past six months or so my colleagues in other provinces have begun to turn seriously to these questions. I believe that at the next conference, which will be held in May, there is every prospect that the new Attorney General of Canada will be able to respond positively to the kind of suggestion, and others, which the honourable member has advanced so vigorously.

Mr. Black: The second recommendation dealt with steps taken to achieve appropriate legislative changes, enabling a court to impose alternative measures on a young person involved in offences related to drugs. Has the Attorney General studied this recommendation and can he inform us whether any actions have been taken to implement such a recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, because his report refers to it, drug offences in Ontario are prosecuted by the Attorney General of Canada, not by local police or the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. It therefore follows that if there were to be an alternative measures program, it would be one that the federal authority would apply with respect to its own prosecutions.

Having ordered us, as the Court of Appeal decided, to have an alternative measures program for Criminal Code offences, which we have, they do not seem to have created an alternative measures program of their own for narcotics and controlled substances offence prohibitions, but they are well aware of the proposal the honourable member has made. I will advance it as vigorously as I can at the May meeting.

The honourable member has also made a proposal, for a variety of reasons, that the prosecution of drug offences in Ontario should be taken from the hands of the federal government and reposed in the office of the Attorney General. We are examining that proposal, which has of course significant financial implications as well.

STANDARDIZED SCHOOL TESTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. It again concerns standardized tests and this strange announcement made by the minister yesterday, after we had a full estimates meeting in which he had not raised the matter except to vaguely allude to benchmark tests.

First, I want to ask the minister just exactly what he is saying here, and I want him to clarify it if he would, please. In his response to a member from the third party, he indicated that the standard ways we now look after children with needs is that the individual teacher does assessments and professionals are brought in with diagnostic tools on an individual basis to determine whether a child has needs. What is the role of a standardized written test to determine the individual learning needs of a child -- not to be held back, as the minister says, but for remediation -- what is that role and why has the minister moved in this direction?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Let me begin by disabusing the member of the notion that the very first time there has been any allusion -- the fact that there is a need to put appropriate assessment mechanisms into place throughout the school system certainly was not raised just yesterday. It is a matter that has been of great concern and subject to much debate and discussion over a period of many years.

The member will know that for the past six months I have indicated on many occasions that I believe the need is there; that we do have an obligation within our school system to do everything we can to see that it meets the needs of each and every child coming into the system; that we do have an obligation to ensure that every child who moves through our education system has the basic skills necessary, at least upon entering high school.

I would remind the member of the recommendations contained not only in many of the research studies, but indeed of the select committee on education, which strongly suggested student assessment as a means of diagnosing those students at risk, those students who needed the most help. That was a clear recommendation of that committee. He will know --

Mr. Speaker: He might have a supplementary and you could add to that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do know what the select committee said, and the select committee did not talk about a standardized assessment form to be used as a written test for students across the province. We have all agreed that there has to be some kind of assessment tool.

My question for the minister is, what is the use of the standard written form, especially when his own advisory committee has asked him time and time again not to do this?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I was saying, the member will know that some three years ago the government indicated that it was undertaking a three-year project for the development of benchmark standards within our elementary schools. As yet, the testing instruments have not been developed, but frankly I believe that they can and should be developed for individual student assessment in conjunction and in line with our work on the benchmark standards.

I believe that one of the fundamental reasons we need such a system is to satisfy the concerns of parents throughout this province who want to know the extent to which the needs of their children are being served, how their students are performing, and the kinds of activities that are in place to provide them with remediation.

I expect that we can move forward, over the course of the next two years or so, to develop those instruments with consultation among all of the interested stakeholders; that student assessment in conjunction with professional evaluation within the classroom is an appropriate mechanism by which to determine those students who are in need and to determine which students --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Attorney General. One of my constituents was allegedly assaulted in a rest home in Cardinal. Charges were laid and the accused was acquitted on February 13 at Brockville district court by a Judge Hurley. The verdict was apparently, in part, the result of the judge’s decision not to accept the complainant’s evidence, which was taken on commission.

I would ask the Attorney General to investigate this case and, if it is warranted, see that an appeal be taken.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the inquiry. If the honourable member could pass me the name of the case, the name of the accused or the complainant, I would be glad to look into it.

I remind him that there is a time limit for appealing; perhaps he could do that as quickly as possible. I would be glad to report to him.

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to thank the Attorney General for doing that on behalf of my constituents and the people in the area who are concerned.

In view of the number of charges that have been laid against rest homes in Ontario, I would ask the Attorney General if he feels, as I do, that perhaps it is time we bring rest homes under some sort of standards. I am sure every member of this House agrees that everyone in Ontario has the right to expect that their loved ones are going to be looked after in a caring manner and that this criterion of a loving, caring manner will be met.

Will the Attorney General now consider legislation to protect the elderly of the province who are living in rest homes?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the law enforcement agencies in the province are quite determined to see that standards, such as they are, are maintained in rest homes; homes; public health standards and so on. Of course, that leads to the very kind of prosecution which the honourable member referred to in his first case.

If the honourable member is now asking whether rest homes should be regulated by the province generally, I will be glad to take that up with the appropriate ministers who would be responsible in the event of such regulation and with my cabinet colleagues, and in due course report to the honourable member, as I always do.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. Reycraft: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I was notified about a half-hour ago that the Ontario Provincial Police have blocked off a road in Biddulph township in the northern part of Middlesex county. The information I have received suggests that the reason for the blockage of the road is that someone has deposited waste oil on the road as a dust suppressant and a further suggestion has been made that the oil was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls.

I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of this situation and, if he is, what action has been taken to protect the people of Biddulph township.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a very good question. My understanding of the incident is that an individual or a firm sought permission from the local municipality to spread waste oil as a dust suppressant, was denied that permission and went ahead and spread the waste oil, which can, of course, on any occasion, contain products we do not want on our roads. This went for about 1.6 kilometres of the roadway.

We did a preliminary test which showed there were 58 parts per million of PCBs from this informal sample. We are now testing a further sample, a legal sample we have, to determine whether there are PCBs and additional waste products that we do not believe should be there.

We have notified the medical officer of health. The Ministry of the Environment and the OPP are closing the road at this time, as the member has mentioned, I want to assure him that the investigation and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment will be conducting a full investigation, and if charges are warranted, of course charges will be laid.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It has been somewhat astonishing to me that in the course of our session this afternoon no one from the government side has risen to explain the circumstances in the Ministry of Community and Social Services office in North Bay, which was occupied last night by the staff of the North Bay and District Association for the Mentally Retarded. I know the minister is not here -- maybe he is attending to that business, but the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I have listened carefully. I do not believe the member has a point of order. However, it would have made a good question.

PETITIONS

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

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

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

“Given that the present population of Brother André high school in Markham consists of 1,500 students and is at capacity; and

“That the projected enrolment for September 1990 is approximately 2,700, with the majority of increased enrolment at the grades 9 and 10 level; and

“That the potential overcrowding will have serious repercussions for students and teachers alike;

“The Ministry of Education, in consultation with the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, move immediately to approve a new high school for occupancy in September 1991 in Milliken Mills that will include initially grades 9 and 10 and therefore alleviate potential intolerable conditions at Brother André high school.”

It is duly signed by myself, with signatures from residents in Markham, Unionville and Scarborough.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process, and given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is signed by myself, with the signatures of residents from Markham, Unionville, Thornhill and York region.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. South, Mrs. LeBourdais, Mr. Leone and Mr. Owen exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 67 and 68.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

Mr. Keyes: It is a pleasure to rise and participate in this debate on the introduction of Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act. May I first apologize for the cause of yesterday’ s delay in my brief respite from the rigours of this House in the east lobby, but I do have that opportunity now today to return and to put forth some of my own views on the merits of this very important piece of legislation.

I want to talk for a few moments about this entire health system in its broadest scope and how the Independent Health Facilities Act fits into the overall scheme of a well-managed, well-regulated, effective health care system.

One of the strongest characteristics, indeed one of the strengths, of our Ontario health care system has been its continuing evolution and its openness to change. We would have to agree that in the last three years we have seen a considerable extent of movement towards change, concern for the status of our citizens and their health care.

We have seen and we continue to see dramatic new development in technologies and procedures. We are seeing the development of new health professions and expanding roles for the traditional care providers.

We also see new advances in health promotion, disease prevention, the shifting of responsibility to the individual to have a greater concern for his own status of health, government assistance by the way of funding in these programs of health promotion and disease prevention, and we are seeing ever-rising public expectations about the ability of the health care system to meet our health care needs.

It is our government’s view that the Ministry of Health has a major responsibility to show leadership in directing these currents of change so that we realize objectives that result in improved health care and improved health for the people of this province.

It was with this objective in mind that last June the minister introduced the Independent Health Facilities Act. The bottom line in all of this is simply that the proposed legislation will allow the minister to regulate and develop community-based health facilities where many of the complex medical services previously covered by the Ontario health insurance plan and usually performed in hospitals can now be done. The act, in short, is part of the ministry’s general commitment to improve both the level and the quality of community-based health care throughout the province to create a positive shift in the provision of health care services.

During the framing of this legislation there have been extensive consultations with the professional associations and organizations. Those consultations are continuing even today. This is a pioneer effort that we are undertaking here in Ontario, because it represents the first legislative approach anywhere for the regulation of community-based clinics.

A few of the states in the United States have legislation for regulating the Emergicenters, as they are known, and the Surgicenters, but none has even attempted the type of comprehensive legislation that we are moving forward with in this province with Bill 148.

In fact, if members want to think back to the press of the last few days, they will have seen surveys of the US system of health care done among its own citizens. They can see now, for the first time ever, the desire of the Americans to have a health care system that more genuinely reflects that which we have here in Ontario, in Canada particularly, more than any other place in the world. That is most significant and, shall we say, a genuine stamp of approval for the health care system that we are constantly working to make more sensitive to the needs of our citizens.

In framing the legislation in Bill 148, the ministry has three broad objectives:

First, to fund the needed services and to develop a more community-based health care system in consultation with the district health councils and the providers of care;

Second, to ensure that patients receive quality medical care as close to home as possible. Today, of course, that is most significant to each and every one of us. It is equally important that those procedures be performed in a safe, effective manner;

Third, to accept the responsibility to regulate facilities so that they are appropriately located and established in a rational and planned manner.

These are the three specific, broad objectives inherent in this legislation.

Once this legislation is enacted -- and we trust that it may well get its second reading today -- under the appropriate surveillance of the citizenry of this province, the independent health facilities will function in a manner similar to the hospital outpatient clinics, with a range of services provided by those same people we would find within our hospitals -- doctors, nurses, technicians and other clinical staff.

In these community facilities, patients will be able to undergo certain medical, surgical and investigative procedures without being admitted to hospital, with a very direct saving in costs but also the preservation of hospital beds for perhaps more acute situations.

The facilities will not keep patients overnight. However, any patient who does need treatment that would require an overnight stay will be cared for in hospital, as is now our normal procedure.

Before any community facility is licensed under this act, there must be a demonstrated need for the service or the range of services to be provided. Keeping in mind the method we have currently used, the usual procedure in applying for a licence will be as follows.

The local district health council, which is one of the major planning adjuncts of the government, or a community group or a medical group, will define a need and recommend to the minister that a facility be established; or the ministry may identify a need and then ask the district health councils to respond with their recommendations.

Second, if the minister agrees with the recommendation and other public-interest criteria are met, the ministry will call for proposals which clearly set out the type of services to be offered. The district health councils will usually review all proposals, rank the order of priority and make recommendations to the minister. The minister will choose a proposal based on merit. Finally, the successful applicant will develop the facility or the service.

In granting licences for community facilities, the ministry will give preference to Canadian and not-for-profit groups. The ministry may enter into a variety of funding arrangements for any of these new facilities. I might just recap a couple of those examples. For example, the facility may be funded on a global basis, covering the costs of operating the facility, including the purchase of medical equipment and the professional services; or, as an alternative, the facilities may be partially funded for costs other than those doctors’ fees, leaving the physicians free to bill the Ontario health insurance plan for their professional services.

Where this second option is agreed upon, the ministry will then pay a facility fee, in other words, the overhead and the operating costs of providing a service that would normally be connected with providing that same service in a hospital but which are not covered by OHIP when provided outside a hospital.

For example, what would the overhead be? The cost of maintaining, staffing and operating of an operating room; the cost of paying a technician to operate laser equipment; the cost of purchasing and operating the equipment itself needed to perform bladder or heart investigations, and the cost of implantable devices, for example, a lens implant in the eye as part of cataract surgery.

The capital or the building costs will normally be the responsibility of the licensee. These costs will be taken into consideration by the ministry when negotiating funding for the facilities. The ministry will also take into account the costs of mortgages and the financing for the five-year licensing period. The only services for which a doctor may charge a patient are those which are neither part of a facility fee nor insured under OHIP, such as cosmetic surgery and medical examinations for insurance coverage.

With respect to the issue of quality assurance, the act requires any licensed facility to establish an appropriate method for monitoring the care and treatment it provides. The ministry is also empowered to designate assessors or inspectors to assess the quality of care and to ensure that the provisions of the act are upheld. Both assessors and inspectors will be governed by the secrecy requirements of

section 30 of the act, as well as by the patient confidentiality provisions of the professional governing bodies to which they belong. For example, physicians are subject to regulation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Once a licence has been granted to a community-based facility, it will be issued for a period of up to five years and will not be transferable. Assuming that the facility has complied with the legislation and the conditions of its licence, the licence will be renewed unless the minister is aware of exceptional circumstances.

In deciding whether to direct that a licence not be issued or renewed, the minister will consider a variety of issues which could include, but not be exclusive of, the type of service being provided, the extent to which the service is already available somewhere else in Ontario, the need for the service or the range of services being provided, the future need for the service, the cost to the public and the availability of public money to pay for the operation of the facility. Licences may be revoked when cause has been clearly documented, such as an immediate threat to the health or the safety of any person.

In keeping with the ministry’s emphasis on improving community-based health care and assuring quality of care, the act will fall under the jurisdiction of the assistant deputy minister of community health. A director of independent health facilities reporting to the executive director of community health will be appointed to oversee these facilities. The director, however, will not be involved in the day-to-day operation of those facilities.

There is just one final item that I want to touch on this afternoon about this legislation. I have attempted to give members an idea of how it will operate when it becomes effective. Facilities that were in operation on June 2, 1988, which is the date that the legislation was introduced in this Legislature, may be grandfathered and allowed to continue to operate as they are until one year after the act comes into force. During that year, these facilities may apply for a licence without going through the competition process which will be essential for any new service created in such a facility.

The ministry will review these applications and make a decision based on the quality of care, cost and need.

In the opinion of this House, the opinion of this party, this is an extremely important piece of legislation for our province. It has a major implication for the future direction of our health care system and for the environment in which our Ontario health professionals will be working. I urge the support of all members of this House for Bill 148.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to take this opportunity to participate in this debate. I listened with interest when the minister first announced this bill and encouraged very much the discussion that has taken place in this House on this question, have consulted widely with community groups and nurses and members of the medical profession concerning Bill 147, and I can tell members that the bill does not do those things which the government tells us it is intended to do.

It is presented by the minister and indeed by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), who just spoke, as if this bill is intended to set up a province-wide community network of facilities which will be, in the words of the minister, community-based.

I think that what is interesting, as always to somebody in this business, is the way in which words are used. Of course any facility that is located in the province is community-based because it is based in some community and therefore it is community-based. But I am here to tell members that in any of the normal understandings of that term, as our understandings have developed in the whole health care debate in this province over the last 30 years, when we talk about community-based care, we are talking about nonprofit, community-controlled, participatory, public-health-oriented centres that have an entirely different connotation from the one that is presented in this bill.

I thought the classic phrase was the one which was spoken by the member for Kingston and the Islands when he reminded us that the government would be licensing facilities but in turn, to use his phrase, it would require that capital and financial costs remain the responsibility of the licensee. I think that is almost a direct quotation. It had such a felicitous quality to it as it was spoken by the member that I wrote it down.

As long as the capital and financial costs for the kinds of facilities that are contemplated by this government are the responsibility of the licensee, this act is a licence requirement for private-profit facilities and clinics operating as businesses in Ontario. That is the beginning of it and that is the end of it. Anything else that happens under this bill will be a frill on the side and not the central thrust.

Because I know the Speaker has a nostalgic bent, I want to take him back to the debates that took place in this House in the late 1960s and early 1970s on the question of nursing homes. I would suspect, going by memory -- and as the Minister for Natural Resources (Mr.

Kerrio) will know, that is one of the attributes of a person that can begin to fade at a certain time in life -- that the last major expansion of this notion of licensing, and then setting up an administrative and legal regime to cover the people who have been given the licence and to provide operating funds for those licensees, was, of course, as members will recall, the Nursing Homes Act of 1971 and the amendments which have taken place since that time.

What has happened under the Nursing Homes Act? Under the Nursing Homes Act, there are approximately 30,000 beds in the private nursing home system in Ontario. My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) is nodding. I do not think it means he is falling asleep, I think it means that he is agreeing with me. Since he was once our Health critic and is very knowledgeable in the area of nursing homes, he says that I am right about that. Over 95 per cent of those nursing homes in this province are owned and operated as businesses.

It is a business in which, to use the phrase of the member for Kingston and the Islands, the capital and financial costs are the responsibility of the licensee, but the operating costs are paid for by the residents in the nursing homes to a certain amount and by the government of Ontario to an additional amount.

The government can blather on about community-based care all it wants; the reality is that this bill is a bill to license private-profit medicine: medicine operated as a business in the province. It will create a network of clinics of various kinds for the treatment of various illnesses that can be done outside the confines of a hospital. The government will find some hospitals going into business to operate these facilities. It will find some doctors buying licences to operate these facilities. It will find doctors and capitalists working together to operate these facilities and it will have these facilities paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.

The capital value of the businesses that operate with these licences will increase very substantially; it will become extremely valuable. We will also find that the people whose businesses are doing business with the government of the day will be spending lots of money going to dinners for the Liberal Party, going to dinners for the Minister of Health and funding the Liberal Party the same way the nursing home owners funded the Tory Party right through the 1970s and right through the 1980s.

This is the Liberal Party’s effort to build a private-profit network of health care in this province. I predict it. I do not say it with any pride, because I think it is a shame that it is happening. I think it is going to create more problems than it is worth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this notion of community-based care.

I know members opposite will say that the Leader of the Opposition should read the bill and understand that under the bill preference is being given to independent health facilities that are operated on a nonprofit basis, and that the person who submitted the proposal should be a Canadian or the corporate person should be controlled by a Canadian or a permanent resident.

I want to just educate members a little bit on this subject. There are not too many community groups in York South that can pool their pin money and buy a lithotripsy machine to service the people in the west end of Toronto. There are not too many people in my riding who can pool their savings and say, “We think it would be a great idea if we went out and raised some community-based money in order to buy a laser machine to provide for the latest in operations for the human eye.”

Let’s get with it here. The capital costs of setting up the kind of facilities that are being contemplated in this bill are high, they are substantial and they will not be paid for, at first blush, by people operating on a nonprofit basis. The government will not get applications from small community-based groups to establish the kind of clinics it is talking about. It will get applications from companies and from partnerships operated by members of the medical profession. It will not get operations that are put forward on a nonprofit basis, and once it declares that someone has a licence, what it is really doing is selling a licence to print money. That is what it turns out to be.

We now have a capitalization of beds in our nursing home system, so when nursing home operators get together, they talk about how much each bed is worth. Why is that? Who has created that value? Do members want to know who has created that value? It is not the free market. We have created that value. This government has created that value. The Liberal Party has created that value, just as the Tories created that value. It is because we have a very heavy demand, a very heavy government subsidy and a limitation in terms of access in the form of a licence.

That is what a licence is. That is what licensees are all about. That is what this system is all about. The fellow who has the lithotripsy licence for Hamilton or Windsor is going to be in business and making a ton of money out of having that licence. It is just as surely the case as the Extendicares, the Bestviews and the others whose empires have been financed by the people of this province. We give them the money. They have the ownership, they have the control and we give them the cash. That is called private enterprise.

That is the worst of both worlds. It is where we have a private profit system that is fuelled and subsidized by the taxpayer. That is what the government has done for car insurance. What have the Liberals done on car insurance? Instead of operating a genuinely community-based system, what do they do? They have a regulated private-profit system in which profits are built into the system, in which cash flow is built into the system, and it is all sanctified by the Liberal government and the Liberal Party. That is the nature of the insurance ripoff.

I know my remarks will be greeted with scepticism. I can already sense that, looking at the, I must say, interested faces across the way and, to my left here, the Liberal rump over on this side. But I tell them to come back in a year or two years, look at who has the licences, examine who is there and figure out what the capital value of those licences will be six months or a year down the road from the time they were granted. Mark my words, this is a licence to print money. That is what it is all about.

There will be other opportunities for us to discuss at greater length what a community-based system would really look like. But I say to this government that as long as it takes the view that capital costs are going to be borne by the licensees, by the private-profit owners of these businesses, it is not going to have the kind of control, it is not going to have the kind of planning the minister talks about and it is not going to have the kind of value for money you get under a community-based system.

I think the government is making a very serious mistake. It is ironic; you have to have a sense of irony in this business. A bill that is portrayed as community-based and is intended to stop free trade is in fact going to do the exact opposite. It means we are adopting, if not actually American companies, certainly the American philosophy of health care, where more and more of our facilities will be operated on a private-profit basis and on a market approach.

We have a bill which allegedly is going to be expanding the nonprofit community-based sector. I predict, because of the costs involved and because of the way in which the government intends to impose and implement this act, that the exact opposite is going to occur.

Looking perhaps a little more globally, if I might for a few seconds without alarming any of my colleagues, I just want to make the observation that we have Margaret Thatcher in England adopting a similar approach with respect to the National Health Service. She is doing it, as is her wont, more aggressively and more clearly than this Liberal government and she is doing it more directly with respect to the operation of certain hospitals. But if we look at the way this government intends to work the operation of our health care system so that stuff is moved out of hospitals and into these private profit clinics, the net effect over the next five, 10 and 15 years will be the same.

We will have a market in health care in which goods will be marketed by the owners of those goods, in which those who are operating centres will be out marketing the value of the services they are offering and in which the capital value of the facilities themselves will increase and will be dramatically subsidized by the taxpayer.

There is a better way. The better way was the one which was set out by our party in Saskatchewan. It is the way in which, in our view, we now need to extend and develop far beyond the philosophy that has been put forward by the Liberal Party in this province. That way is to expand health care into the community, owned, operated, controlled by and accountable to the community from which it comes.

That way, if it is determined that there should be a lithotripsy centre, that lithotripsy centre in Niagara Falls, Kingston, Cornwall or wherever it may be will be established because there is a community need for it and there will be a community determination to pay for it, rather than having to wait for Sam the Record Man to set up his store there in order to make that sale.

That is the difference in philosophy, and it is a very real difference in philosophy. It is going to have a very real different impact on our health care system as the next few years unfold. I know that much of what I say here is greeted with considerable scepticism, not only by my colleagues but by members of other parties as well. They say: “This isn’t really what the bill’s going to do. This isn’t what it’s intended to do.”

I invite some of the newer members to go back, as I did when I first came here because of my interest in the subject of nursing homes, and look at the debate that took place in 1970 and 1971. All I can say is that we told you what would happen. Look at the comments made by members of the New Democratic Party. They were described as the socialist ravings of a very small minority of people who did not know what they were talking about.

I am here to tell members it is exactly the same, the parallel development today, as took place in 1971. What the Tories did for nursing homes the Liberals are doing for what they call independent health facilities and what I call private-profit health facilities.

Mark my words, if this bill goes through in its current form, in five years’ time we will not have a better-managed or a better-planned system: we will simply have a greedier, more privatized system. That is the Liberal agenda. That is the Liberal answer to the current chaos in our institutional side. That is the answer to the Liberal chaos in the public health side. That is the answer to the Liberal chaos in our health care system, but it is the wrong answer.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, does the minister wish to wind up?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to rise to wind up this debate on second reading of Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities. This bill was tabled in the Legislature on June 2, 1988, and espoused certain principles.

We discussed at that time how much the practice of medicine had changed. We discussed the three compelling and irresistible forces within our society: the changing demographics, the fact that our population is ageing; the economic reality that, by any international standard, we have the best-funded national health system in the world; the changes of the past decade in technology and the fact that today we are able to see procedures done safely, on an outpatient basis, that previously could only be done on an inpatient basis in hospital.

We have acknowledged the need to establish a framework piece of legislation, to allow us to respond, and respond effectively, to these changing technologies. I would say we have recognized that new technologies have made it possible to safely perform some medical procedures out of a hospital setting.

When I have stood in this House and discussed what I refer to as the vision for the future, and that is to provide equity and access to effective quality health care as close to home as possible, what we are really saying is that the fundamental principles of medicare, discussed in this country in 1968, discussed again in the early 1970s, discussed and, in fact, unanimously agreed to in the federal Parliament in 1984, are sound principles today.

What we are attempting to do with this legislation is to respond to the changing times, as we adjust our system to acknowledge not only economic realities and changing demographics, but that technology is now allowing us to provide procedures in different settings, so that vision of having those services as close to home as possible becomes a reality in our society.

What we have said is that there are already a number of facilities that have started to offer such services. I believe, and I believe every member of this House will agree, that when services which are presently provided in a hospital setting, where you have a quality assurance mechanism and confidentiality provisions for patients, are provided in a community-based setting, we should expect -- in fact, we should demand -- the same level of quality assurance, confidentiality and accountability from those providing services in a community-based setting as we presently have in our hospital setting.

This bill allows for the planned expansion of a system of community-based services through the independent health facilities as we envision them. I look forward to this bill going to committee, because there has been much consultation and much discussion with many of the providers, professionals and community groups who are very interested in this.

In fact, I would say to the members of this House that this bill has received attention beyond the borders of Ontario, because it acknowledges the opportunity for us, through this piece of legislation, to see that services can be provided in alternative settings. As I have said to my colleagues in the House, I think this offers unique opportunities for northern Ontario, perhaps for rural Ontario, to look at services which can be provided in alternative settings closer to where people live.

We know that the mechanisms in this bill will ensure that these independent health facilities are appropriately located and that procedures in those facilities, likely perhaps operating rooms, are performed in a safe and effective manner.

The act authorizes the establishment and operation of community-based independent health facilities. I think it is very important to reiterate the stated objectives of this act during this windup debate. We want to develop a more community-based health care system. We want the participation of the district health councils so that we can plan effectively for the future.

We want to ensure that the people of this province receive effective, quality medical care. We want to regulate facilities so that they may be established in a manner which is consistent with a well-planned health care system that can acknowledge the changing times.

The services we envisions being provided in an independent health facility would include those provisions which are commonly provided today on an outpatient basis in hospitals. Given how rapidly technology is changing, we can only imagine what kinds of services might be available in the future, so this act is permissive.

It is very clear that we will go out with tenders and requests for proposals to ensure that communities can respond. I believe very strongly that the communities in this province will join together and will join with other providers. I talked in my opening remarks about how important it would be to see these kinds of joint ventures where community boards and those with expertise will come together with proposals unique to the community needs of this province, and I have great confidence that the communities and the community organizations will respond positively. That is why we have said that this bill, as it is written today, has a nonprofit, community-based preference clause.

We have seen a rapid technological explosion. This bill gives us an opportunity not only to respond today but also to plan for the future. The act will permit the expansion of community-based services on a planned basis right across this province so that we can acknowledge where the services are needed and how they can be most effectively provided to the communities in the future.

I can say that there has been much consultation on this bill and that I have listened. I am looking forward to getting to committee on this bill, where we will hopefully have an opportunity to hear from those people who have an interest in this legislation. That will give us an opportunity to make sure that the final product, the bill that comes out of that community, reflects the consultation that has taken place over the many months since this bill was first tabled.

I will tell the members of this House that, in fact, there was a symposium held by the health law organization in this province. Interest from the attendants was positive as many of the aspects of this bill were discussed and debated.

I believe that the consultation has been productive and I believe that as we agree today in the principles that this legislation espouses, it will allow us to move forward in the legislative process to achieve a bill that is the ultimate of the committee structure, the ultimate of the discussions of members of this Legislature, and that we will see a future in this province that will help us to achieve the vision I espoused a few moments ago.

It is the reason that when we look at the licensing provisions of the bill, as well as the funding provisions of the bill, we acknowledge changing times, we acknowledge changing needs of communities.

We also acknowledge the fact and the reality that there are some services which are already being provided in what will be considered an independent health facility. That is why we have included, for those that were operating on the day this bill was tabled, a grandfathering provision. Some suggested we might call it a grandmothering provision. None the less, I think it shows a sensitivity to an acknowledgement of the reality of what is, as we plan for the future.

I believe that when we get to committee this bill, through this discussion we have had with many of the interested partners, with many of the interested providers and with many of the interested professional groups, will result in a piece of legislation that will hopefully be supported by all members in this Legislature, because I believe very strongly, as I have said on numerous occasions, that the health care challenges we face are not a partisan issue.

What we want to attempt as we plan for the future, what we want to be able to plan for the future is that we have a legislative framework in place that will allow us to determine what the needs are, to make sure that every region of this province receives its fair share of available and precious health care resources, to make sure that we involve the communities and the district health councils in our planning and that we go out to the communities for community-based services. This bill will offer us an opportunity to begin that.

Will it respond to all of the changing needs of this province? I think not, because no one piece of legislation, no one initiative can respond entirely to the challenges we face in health care. But is this an important piece of legislation to help us move forward, to make sure the future delivery of services in this province allows us to hand to our children the legacy we were handed, a health care system and delivery of services that will give us quality, that will give us effectiveness in the delivery of those quality services, that will give us accountability by providers and that will give us quality assurance and protection of the public?

I believe this bill will do that and I encourage members of this House to support this bill in principle today so that it can move to committee for discussion and hopefully back into this House, because it is worthy and deserving of the support of the members of this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before you do what you will do, might I just seek the consent of the House.

As members will know, yesterday when the House was in committee of the whole dealing with amendments relating to Bill 128, a vote was stacked, by consent, from that committee to a time today at 5:45 p.m. The House leaders have met and agreed that it would be appropriate for me to seek unanimous consent this afternoon to do the following: that we take the votes on both items, first, second reading of this legislation, Bill 147, after which we would then take the vote that was intended, namely, the committee of the whole on Bill 128, at 5:45 this afternoon.

If I could, I would like to seek unanimous consent to vary the order of the House yesterday to the following: that we will take both votes, the second reading vote on Bill 147 and the committee of the whole vote on the stacked amendment on Bill 128 this afternoon consecutively at whatever time the whips appear before you.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The House divided on Hon. Mrs. Caplan’s motion for second reading of Bill 147, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Ballinger, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Campbell, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elston, Faubert, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, MacDonald, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Stoner, Tatham, Ward, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Eves, Farnan, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, McCague, McLean, Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Villeneuve, Wiseman.

Ayes 52; nays 22.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

House in committee of the whole.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Planning Act,

Section 2:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that

section 2 of the said act be amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause (

j) and by adding thereto the following clause:

“(

k) The protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.”

The committee divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston’s amendment to

section 2, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 18; Nays

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 1 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole reported one bill with a certain amendment.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Let me be absolutely clear about this. This is the budget debate that we are resuming and that is why we are here this week instead of having committees doing the important work of Bill 162 and other things, and the select committee. It is because we have to continue the budget debate today. I just want a clarification that this is why we are here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to speak to the point of order by suggesting that our good friend the member for Scarborough West talk to his House leader, because I am going to show uncustomary restraint in not embarrassing a friend.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: By the same token, that would mean the House leader would in fact wish to mention the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations bills and the 40-odd pounds of amendments we received today.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We shall proceed with the debate. Do any members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McClelland: It is a pleasure for me to continue the debate on the budget and to draw to the attention of members opposite, indeed, of the people of this province, some of what I sincerely believe to be outstanding accomplishments of this government over the past few years, as reflected in the budget of last April.

There are a number of points of discussion on the budget, but I wanted to begin by taking a look at some of the things that are important to my riding. My riding of Brampton North is an area of tremendously high growth. We have a growth projected this year of about 16 per cent, and into next year a projected growth of some 19 per cent.

With that comes tremendous pressures, and we have tremendous diversity across this province. My friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann), who has already spoken on this matter in the past, has talked about the restructuring of the economy in his riding. As we face those kinds of pressures and the government responds to that, we have areas like Brampton where there is not so much a restructuring as a development for the future.

We have the pleasure of having virtually no unemployment in our area, and I think this government has shared a

part in that. Since 1985 in this province there have been 463,000 jobs created. We would be the first to suggest that is not all simply a product of this government and our very well-thought-out and good fiscal policy; it is largely a factor resulting from world economic growth and development. The North American economy is generally strong.

But having said all that, I think Ontario is at the forefront of economic growth and development. We have the opportunity in this province to seize this moment of fiscal prosperity and begin to mold and shape and use those resources wisely for the future for our children and our children’s children. We can begin to lay the foundation for the kind of province we have and look forward to passing on to our families in the future.

In the last year alone it is estimated that some 180,000 jobs were created in Ontario. We are pleased with the expanding job opportunities, because that does not happen automatically. One of the reasons new investment is attracted to Ontario is that we have invested heavily in our communities, schools, hospitals, colleges, universities and highways.

If I can relate that to what has happened in Brampton, and I look at the tremendous growth in population and the tremendous stresses on our school system, I want to talk for a moment about what we have done in education and talk about the capital expenditures our government has provided in the area of education.

We have seen in the past few years tremendous pressures on the capital requirements of school boards. There are ridings like mine where there is just a tremendous shortage of space for children in our schools. We recognize that. We inherited a government that had sadly neglected capital investment in the area of education over the past number of years.

In 1985 we began to look at that. Last year’s budget began to set out a plan that was long-term, thoughtful, and provided a foundation we can build on not only this year but into the future.

As members know, we looked at a budget last year of some $3.9 billion in education. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) last year announced $381 million for capital construction. That is a significant achievement. That is the first instalment of a $900-million commitment our government has made over the next three years.

We did that in 1988 and set out a plan. For the first time, I believe, in many, many years, we looked at the need for capital funding in education and not only looked at the one shot, the one time for this year, but looked at what we are going to do next year and the year beyond. It is a pattern that we have established and I am sure we will continue.

It does not take a lot of wisdom to sit back and say that if we are going to provide adequately for the needs of our children and the children in the communities we represent, we must do so thoughtfully and wisely and carefully.

I suppose there are a number of areas we could look at in terms of government funding where we might say that there would never be enough money. Certainly the areas of health care and education and social services come to mind immediately.

I suppose we can never put a ceiling on how much money we would want to invest in our young people. Indeed, it has been said, and I think it bears repeating, although it has been said so often that it sounds trite, but it is not trite at all to say that the young people we have in Ontario are this jurisdiction’s greatest resource, and I think how we deal with that and how we invest with that speaks volumes about a government. Our government has seen the need to wisely and carefully and prudently think into the future.

Having said that, I draw to the members’ attention again that $381 million was committed last year to capital expenditures. In total, that three-year grant that we announced in the budget will enable us to build schools that will create 110,000 new student spaces. That is something I am very pleased about, as I consider my responsibilities as a member for my riding.

I also think that is important, if I can be a little bit selfish for a moment, when I consider the situation that my little fellow is in. I have a boy who is almost three years of age. Right now he is in a situation, because of what I believe is the total neglect of the previous government -- and I say it with the greatest respect to my friends who are serving opposite, but I think that they cannot with any sincerity look back at the record and say that there was any planning in terms of capital expenditures -- that in two years’ time, when my little guy starts to go to school, he would have a 45- to 50-minute bus ride one way and a 45- to 50-minute bus ride back.

I see that as problematic because he is one of literally thousands of students in the Brampton area who are faced with that situation. People have come to me and visited me in my constituency office. I have spoken to parents and teachers, I have spoken to educators and concerned citizens who say: “What are we doing about capital allocations for schools? Why don’t we have school spaces for our children?”

One of the reasons is that schools cannot be built overnight. We knew a long time ago that there were certain areas of this province that would have high growth, and that was not addressed. Shortly after taking the reins of government, the Peterson government said, “We have to deal with that and we have to provide the kinds of structures, the kind of financial base to do wise and long-term planning.”

I look forward to the fact that the school boards of Peel and Dufferin-Peel, the two school boards that principally are responsible for the education jurisdiction in my riding, now have some tools to begin to work for some planning in capital construction. Yes, they would say to me and they would say to members of this House that they do not have enough money. We recognize that, but there is never enough in that sense. We have taken some very concrete steps and have made a commitment I think we can be very proud of.

Dollars are not the only thing that really are demonstrative, but we are talking about the budget and I want to focus in on that for a minute and put it in terms of comparative figures.

With respect to education, when we took office, we first doubled, then we tripled, and in this past year, in this past budget of 1988, we quadrupled the amount of money that we have spent on renovating and building new schools. That pattern will continue and I, as a member of this government, am very proud of that fact and proud to be associated with that kind of demonstrated commitment to education.

It seems to me a shame that the official opposition, which speaks so proudly of its commitment to the finer things in life in our society and always speaks with such passionate self-righteousness about having the only answers, the only solutions, is not even here to participate in this debate and that there is not one member from the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, here to participate today as we discuss the foundation of government, the budget.

Every ministry that is represented by my colleagues in government and cabinet and the responsibilities that they have in exercising ministerial responsibilities turns on the budget allocation and the use of those moneys, the moneys of the people of Ontario.

After all, when all is said and done, the money that we talk about when we talk about the budget is the money of the men and women, and indeed the boys and girls, of Ontario. I often talk to schoolchildren in exercising my responsibilities. One of the highlights, I think, for all members here is to have schoolchildren come to visit them or to visit in schools and discuss the political process with students. I am quick to remind them they are taxpayers too. Schoolchildren, when they go in and buy items, pay sales tax.

When they spend their allowance money or their paper-route money, or work in a grocery store or wherever they might be working, they are contributing to the budget of this province.

As I talk about education and how that is important to me, as a father and as a representative of a community that is growing, I find it very distressful that my friends from the NDP, the official opposition, cannot be here today to engage in this very worthwhile and vitally important debate in terms of the operation of this province and this government.

I have touched briefly on some of the issues with respect to education. I have had the privilege of serving in the last few months in the Ministry of the Environment as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who I think has done an outstanding job. I think his record as an environmentalist speaks for itself.

Let me touch very briefly on some of the things we have done.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I hear that you are responsible for his attire.

Mr. McClelland: The House leader says, and I say this with some humility, that I have even had some positive impact on my minister in terms of his investment in the haberdashery trade in this province. If that is a contributing factor to the budget, we are delighted that I have been able to be of some assistance in that regard.

Let me talk about the environment and what we have done as a government. Since 1985, this government has made a commitment, not only in terms of how it was going to deal with the environment but how it was going to demonstrate that with dollars and cents.

In relative terms, the environment is ranked at the very top of people’s concerns. Polls tell us -- and none of us here, of course, believe in polls as such -- but we are told that 89 per cent of the people in this province believe that they are impacted directly, their quality of life is impacted by the environment.

Our government was aware of that before polls began to tell us that. In 1985, when we took the reins of power, this government said that we were going to address environment in a very real way and begin to deal with it with some practical solutions. Rather than responding to crises, we were going to take some leadership. We were going to put in tough regulations.

We did that. We put in regulations that we were told were going to pull the rug out from industry in this province. That did not happen. Industry got on board and it co-operated and Ontario is now one of the leading jurisdictions. That has been demonstrated even last week, with the leadership that we have shown in terms of the announcement made about chlorofluorocarbons and trying to deal with the problem of the ozone layer.

But as we talk about the kinds of programs we have, they hinge on the budget and the commitment that has been made by this government to the Ministry of the Environment.

Since the 1984-85 fiscal year, the year before we took power, to this past fiscal year, 1988, the budget in the Ministry of the Environment has increased some 51 per cent. As a result of that increase, we have been able to do many things we wanted to do. We have many, many more things we want to do. There are countless problems across this province. There are some 396 or so landfill sites that require attention, a legacy left by the previous government. We have to deal with that; and again, with the resources that we have available, we are beginning to do that.

Let me talk about some of the initiatives that have come as a result of the environmental budget in 1988. We committed $426 million, an increase of 51 per cent, as I said. We have also had some additional allocations that bring that number up slightly. Undoubtedly, as we go into the next year, we will be continuing that budgetary and monetary commitment. I am confident that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), in his wisdom, will continue to invest the money of the people of this province in that most important area.

Because of that financial commitment that we made, as a government, that increase representing over $425 billion -- $425 million -- last year -- I know the minister would be delighted if I could comment on that little misspeak, that little slip of the lip; I said $426 billion. I can just see that the Minister of the Environment would be walking about nine feet off the ground right now if he thought that was at all a possibility.

The $426 million is significant. That is demonstrative of an increase. As I said, money does not really mean everything in and of itself, but let me tell my friends here about some of the things that has represented.

As a result of that budgetary commitment, we have introduced the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, otherwise known as MISA. We have seen, together with our commitment financially, that industry, municipalities and regions can work hand in hand in addressing this very critical issue, the area of the environment, as we begin to control emissions from industry and work with them to ensure the environment we live in and leave for our children is an environment we can be proud of and feel comfortable in.

Last summer we read about the problems with the sewage flowing into Lake Ontario in this immediate area, and indeed problems with Great Lakes pollution generally. We committed money to beaches cleanup so the people in our cities will have recreation facilities near at hand and be able to enjoy the tremendous resources we have available to us in terms of the natural recreation area of the Great Lakes.

Part and parcel of that is our need for water and sewage infrastructure commitment. As our municipalities grow, we have tremendous pressures in terms of dealing with the water re