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

November 22, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COURT SYSTEM

EAST NORTHUMBERLAND SECONDARY SCHOOL

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

RESPONSES

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

SEWAGE TREATMENT

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

WIFE ASSAULT

NATIVE SUICIDE RATE

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

ATTENDANT CARE

VISITOR

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

VETERINARIANS ACT, 1989

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT, 1989

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT, 1989

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1989

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Farnan: The government of Ontario has introduced legislation to impose its version of no-fault auto insurance on the people of Ontario. What will this mean for you? According to the Committee for Fair Action in Insurance Reform it means this.

You will receive inadequate compensation for your injuries and lost income. You will pay more in premiums, even though the government promised in 1987 that it had a plan to reduce these costs.

You will pay more in taxes to cover the further $141 million handed back to the insurance companies by the government. You will have to purchase additional disability insurance if, as a provider for a family of four, you want to receive benefits above the poverty line.

As an employee, you will not get full recovery for loss of wages. If self-employed, you will be unable to recover loss of profit. You could lose your business and receive nothing. You will lose the right to sue for pain, suffering and other losses.

You will be treated no better than the negligent driver responsible for your injuries. You will lose your legal right to seek compensation from negligent or dangerous drivers. You will be forced to live under a system which the government’s own advisers have opposed.

In short, the Premier (Mr Peterson) said in Cambridge on 10 September 1987 he had a plan to reduce auto insurance premiums in the province of Ontario. If this is the plan, he has betrayed the drivers of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

Mr Wiseman: Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a most serious situation, that of the inefficiency of government mail service.

Two weeks ago I sent a letter by interoffice mail to the Macdonald Block, a few hundred feet from my office. I waited a full week and still had no reply. I looked into the matter only to discover that nothing could be done for me, as the office to which I had sent the letter had not received it.

When I was Minister of Government Services, I occasionally got complaints if the mail had not arrived in two or three days, so I realize that difficulty in service does occur, but it seems to me that something is dreadfully wrong when you cannot send an envelope between two offices in the same cluster of buildings in less than a week, and I can only feel that it speaks to the general inefficiency which is the trademark of this government.

After all, this is the same government which has destroyed the fine health care system that we once knew in Ontario, that has put the dream of home ownership for many people out of reach and that has taken education out of the classroom into the portable. So I guess it is understandable that they are having trouble delivering the mail.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Mr Adams: In 1983 the Peterborough Young Women’s Christian Association responded to an urgent need by establishing the first of two emergency shelters for women and children in crisis. Today the YWCA’s Crossroads residences regularly operate at occupancy rates of almost 150 per cent. The efforts of the Peterborough YWCA in dealing with family violence and its aftermath are well known and widely respected in the community.

I am pleased to tell the House that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) is attending an event in Peterborough this evening designed to raise awareness of wife assault as a crime. The work of the YWCA has brought to light the great complex of issues that surround family violence, especially the matter of dealing with long-term effects on children from violent homes. I am greatly concerned that children bear scars that are far less visible than those of their parents.

As awareness of family violence grows, so does the need for facilities and services for victims. Emergency shelters cannot provide long-term support. High occupancy rates make it difficult to provide anything more than basic assistance. Children need an ongoing support system.

I urge members to join the government’s effort to raise awareness during this month, which has been declared Wife Assault Prevention Month, and to work to provide services in every community in Ontario.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I want to bring to the attention of this House and in particular to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) an advertisement which appeared in the Toronto Star yesterday. The advertisement was placed by the Workers’ Compensation Board and concerned permanent disability pensions.

The purpose was to advertise to injured workers that as a result of Bill 162 they might be entitled to supplementary benefits. The ad lists five criteria which must all be met in order to qualify for a supplement. Workers who believe they are entitled are asked to contact the Workers’ Compensation Board to pursue the matter further.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the facts in the advertisement are not correct. If compared to the actual legislation, it is evident that one of the requirements listed is not necessary in order to qualify for a supplement. That requirement in the ad is that a worker who has a pension from the WCB must have had the pension commuted or paid out in a lump sum.

That is not what Bill 162 says. Any worker with a pension, whether it was paid out as a lump sum or is now being paid on a monthly basis, may qualify for a supplement. The other criteria listed in the ad must apply as well. However, given that some of the information is misleading, workers who might qualify will not contact the board based on what the ad now says.

Since this refers to government legislation, in particular Bill 162, the Minister of Labour should instruct the board to pull the present ad and replace it with one having the correct information.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Attorney General (Mr Scott). I have received numerous complaints from my constituents who believe he is not doing them justice. They are concerned about overcrowded courts, increasing case backlogs and deteriorating court facilities.

The deterioration of our justice system in Ontario affects individuals with business before the court and staff who must work in overcrowded or poor facilities. It affects judges and lawyers who are bogged down in an overburdened and backlogged system.

The minister must admit that this deterioration of the system filters down to the level of those we expect to enforce the laws of the province, our police officers, who, through no fault of their own, may not be as courteous as we have all come to expect because they are growing frustrated by an inefficient and overburdened judicial system.

A constituent recently told me that he was not permitted to renew his driver’s licence until he paid his past parking fines, which he had already done and had received his cancelled cheque. He was again denied his licence renewal because records indicated he had not paid his outstanding parking fines. This occurred six weeks after he paid his fines and still the records show he had not paid up.

Does the minister call this justice? Surely, he must agree that not only must justice be done in this province, it must also be perceived to be done. This is currently not happening in Ontario. How would the minister like to have had all his fines paid and still not be able to renew his driver’s licence?

EAST NORTHUMBERLAND SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mrs Fawcett: I rise in the House today at the risk of sounding like a broken record, but then, that is what this statement is all about -- a broken record.

The students of East Northumberland Secondary School in Brighton, Ontario, have broken their own last year’s Canadian record of $14,000 raised for cancer. This year, by means of their annual Terry Fox run, these young people raised over $19,000. This is phenomenal. Indeed, these young people are phenomenal, as each year they prove the sceptics wrong by topping the previous year’s amount of money pledged.

I was so pleased that the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) could be present this week with me at the school for the presentation of the cheque to the Canadian Cancer Society. The minister was there to attend the school’s local Education Week kickoff breakfast and extended his time to be present for this special assembly.

We were most impressed with the exuberant spirit that just pulsated around the gym. Two staff members, Tim Larry and John Ward, deserve praise and special recognition for the help and hard work which enabled the students to attain this success. I am sure all members will once again join me in saluting this remarkable achievement by the staff and students of East Northumberland Secondary School who keep Terry’s dream alive. Somewhere the hurting has to stop.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr Laughren: For some time now the people of Ontario have been getting a mixed message from this government about its position on the federal goods and services tax. We have all been bombarded with doubletalk. The Liberals said the GST was bad for Ontario; the Liberals said the GST, on the other hand, was a fair, upfront tax. The Liberals said they would fight the GST; the Liberals said how they looked forward to amalgamating the provincial sales tax with the federal GST.

Yesterday’s debate on this issue resolved all the doubletalk and forced the Peterson government to admit that it favours amalgamating the Ontario sales tax with the federal GST. The Right Honourable Mr Mulroney and Mr Wilson decided to base their version of tax reform on what a person spends and not on what he or she earns. It is sad but not surprising to see how willing this province’s Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) is to participate in a system of taxation that discriminates against lower and middle-income families.

I say this is not surprising, because the Liberal Party of Ontario is the party of unfair taxes. Among other things, the Liberals have hiked sales taxes and gas taxes. They have increased property taxes by underfunding education and cutting municipal grants. They even threw in a brand-new tax on tires. It is therefore not surprising that they want to join the Tory GST plot to tax everything that moves. This Treasurer has quickly become known as Maximum Bob.

Mr McCague: In Ontario, where we live and have had to live for four years with the GST -- that is, the Grits soaking taxpayers -- the government’s criticisms of the proposed goods and services tax rests on a blatant double standard.

It is a double standard which allows the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to complain about the impact of the GST on the cost of housing while ignoring the fact that his own tax policies have added thousands of dollars to the cost of new home ownership; which allows him to shed crocodile tears over the GST tax treatment of provincial transfer payment recipients while hitting them with his own payroll tax; which allows him to worry about the effect of the GST on the Metropolitan Toronto region, which his last budget transformed into the GTA -- the greatest taxation area.

Double standards may be a great help in the federal-provincial political wars but they will not provide much of a foundation for a sound tax policy. The people of Ontario are not interested in this government’s double standard. It is now up to the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Treasurer of Ontario to show some leadership in finding solutions to our tax problems instead of finding excuses for doing nothing, and to finally stop trying to pass the buck and concentrate on helping the taxpayers save a few.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH AND FARM MACHINERY SHOW

Mr McGuigan: On 19 September I believe I achieved a record as a sitting MPP: I participated in the third opening of an International Plowing Match held in a county which I represented. While a member for Kent-Elgin, the match was held in Kent in 1979, in Elgin in 1985 and, while I am the member for Essex-Kent, the match was hosted this year by Essex county.

The International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show was held on Highway Farms in Maidstone township. The attendance was approximately 130,000. There were 96 official entries for the competitive events, and 570 exhibitors. Among those who competed in the special plowing competition for elected officials -- and the winner -- was the Premier (Mr Peterson). The winner of the cowchip chucking competition was Governor Blanchard of the state of Michigan.

The chairman of the event, Jack Morris, has asked me to thank all the members of the Legislature who attended and participated in the special events. I ask the pages to play their

part in this historic event and deliver cowchip chucking awards to the members for Chatham-Kent (Mr Bossy), London North (Mrs Cunningham), Elgin (Miss Roberts), Lambton (Mr D. W. Smith), Grey (Mr Lipsett) and the member for Norfolk (Mr Miller) to proudly display. Several other members received their awards on 19 September.

I would ask that all members join me in congratulating all those who supported the competition, the chairman, the host farmers, the members of the match committee and the Ontario Plowmen’s Association, all of whom made this event a great success.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Hon Mr Wong: I am pleased to report to the House today that I have just received an extensive report from the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario. This report is the result of two years of intensive research and consultation in response to concerns raised primarily by foreign-trained groups over the barriers that these foreign-trained individuals experience in obtaining licensure or certification by self-governing professions and trades.

In 1986 the cabinet committee on race relations launched a two-phased study which highlighted a number of potential barriers. The first phase of the study was completed by Abt Associates. The cabinet then established the task force in 1987 to conduct the second phase.

I want to congratulate the three members of the task force, who are in the east gallery today, Chairman Peter Cumming, Ms Enid Lee and Dr Dimitrios Oreopoulos, for the dedication and commitment they have shown throughout this intensive research and consultation process. I want to commend them for their comprehensive report on a complex issue.

The task force has investigated and made recommendations in a number of areas where foreign-trained persons face serious obstacles to having their credentials recognized and obtaining the programs needed to help them practise in their occupations. These extensive recommendations include prior-learning assessment, licensure testing, language testing and training, retraining and decision review. The Ministry of Citizenship, in conjunction with ministries affected, will co-ordinate a response to these recommendations. This will involve an ongoing process of consultation and discussions with the appropriate stakeholders such as the professions, trades and community groups.

The task force’s recommendations are also pertinent in an increasingly competitive economy. One of the ways we can ensure our continued growth and development is by striking down unwarranted barriers. Foreign-trained individuals with the proper qualifications must have the opportunity to practise in their chosen professions. As a province committed to equal opportunity for all residents, we have a responsibility to create and maintain standards of fairness that promote the best use of skills in our labour force.

Finally, I look forward to receiving input from those affected by this report so that the government’s response can be formulated in a thorough and timely way.

RESPONSES

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Mr Philip: We welcome the report that has now been tabled, although one year late. The minister’s response to the report is to have yet another study on the study. That is the type of action we can expect from this government.

We have noted the difficulties with the current training educational system that is a result of this government’s inaction, its underfunding. We showed yesterday that older workers are discriminated against when it comes to any kind of retraining, and we have seen that minorities and ethnic groups are not getting their fair share of the jobs and indeed, this government has refused to put in any kind of employment equity program that would remedy this situation. Instead, it is going to have another study on a study.

We have seen that the most underpaid workers in Ontario are those from the various minority groups, but this government refuses to enact any kind of legislation to deal with this. In looking through the study, one has to contrast it with the statement made by the Premier (Mr Peterson) at last week’s first ministers’ conference in which he talked about skills training being delivered provincially through a bipartite training council consisting of both labour and management. We see no mention of involvement of the workers or their representatives in this particular study which the minister has tabled.

The Ontario Federation of Labour in its education training paper makes it fairly clear that if you are going to have any kind of training, you must also have adequate public funding of the institutions and also provision of income support, child care, etc, in order that people from these various minority groups can take advantage of such training.

This government is completely silent on all of these items in tabling this study which it now intends to study still further. It is about time that this government showed some action and did less studying.

Mr B. Rae: I just want to make an observation with respect to this government’s increasing approach to the handling of the media with respect to these announcements.

I note with interest, as I am sure do all of us who watch the sociology of this place, that there is an increasing tendency by members of the cabinet to make announcements in the House that involve rather extensive packaging, that this packaging is presented to us on very short notice, we are then asked to respond and then a rather lengthy press conference is held, usually scheduled for the very end of question period, which, as every member here knows, is precisely the time at which the press and members of the opposition and members of the government normally meet the press in the scrum.

I make no comment on this other than to say that it is an example of management of the media which is very obvious to all of us on this side. We have watched it, we have seen its evolution, we have watched its evolution. I would suspect that members of the gallery have noticed it as well, and if they have not, I would simply draw it to everyone’s attention.

Mr Reville: It is 1984, 1984 is here.

Mr B. Rae: It is 1984 all over again.

Mrs Marland: I think the most significant comment on this Task Force Report on Access to Professions and Trades in Ontario has to be, on behalf of our caucus, that we congratulate Peter Cumming, the chairperson, Enid Lee and Dr Dimitrios Oreopoulos for their work and their commitment in serving on the task force.

However, I am sure that they are about to be faced with the same delusion and disappointment that so many other members of government-appointed task forces and study groups have in the past four years, whereby the commission of these people to a very responsible, important investigation into a very critical matter involving the employment of thousands of people in this province is always relegated to, “Thank you very much, you have done a very nice job; we will now look at it.”

The closing paragraph of the minister’s statement says, “I look forward to receiving input from those affected by this report so that the government’s response can be formulated in a thorough and timely way.” How many times does this government have to have these people bang their heads against the wall? The minister knows the input of those affected people. He does not have to wait for more input. He knew the problem before the report was even drafted. Now he has some clear recommendations, I presume, and he is going to study them further.

I think this whole situation is a further example of this government’s approach to problems. It does not ever want to make a decision, it does not ever want to be active. I think it is worth noting that this report that is tabled today on 22 November was in fact due in November 1988. So before the minister stands up and starts saying that he is going to start studying something further, why does he not look at where he is today?

He has the information he needs, why does he not move forward instantly with a remedy? I think it is insulting to ask for more input from those people who are affected, those people who have been crying out for opportunities for employment because they are trained professionals and they are equivalent to the people who hold those kinds of jobs already in Ontario, but they simply cannot get the licence to do the job that they are equipped to do. I think it is time he showed the responsibility that he is supposed to have as the Minister of Citizenship and showed some leadership that this government is totally lacking.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. I have received a copy of a document which is entitled, Cabinet Submission Proposal and Recommendation, and it is a recommendation apparently for a commission of inquiry into the planning, development, financing and servicing of land in the region of York as provided for in the Municipal Act.

This follows several press reports with respect to internal memoranda within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs concerning the need for such an inquiry. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why it is that the government decided not to proceed with such an inquiry?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of that particular document, to which my honourable friend refers. The minister may well be and I can refer it to him.

Hon Mr Sweeney: My recollection is that my predecessor had asked several people in the ministry to look at a number of ways of dealing with a concern with respect to York region. The commission of inquiry was one of three options that was presented to him. One of the other options was a management inquiry using and working directly with the various municipalities in York region and that is the one that the minister opted for. Other than that, I am not quite sure what else the member is speaking to.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder why the government would have rejected the option of a commission of inquiry when it was the one apparently recommended to the minister, it was at the top of the list. Those advising the minister made it very clear that the problem with simply having an administrative review is that he would not have subpoena powers, he would not be able to call witnesses and insist on witnesses and he would not be able to get to the bottom of this problem, a problem which is documented in a 12-page memorandum which is attached to the cabinet submission.

This document makes it very clear that there are officials within the ministry who are convinced that there is a problem that is larger than the government has been prepared to admit thus far. Would the minister undertake, since he is a new minister, at the very least to tell the House why he thinks that no such inquiry is called for?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Again, I am going on long-term recollection, but my memory was that the police were conducting an inquiry of their own at exactly the same time and the information and feedback that staff of my ministry were able to share with the ministry at that time was that the police had not been able to determine any basis for conducting a more full-scale inquiry and on the basis of that the previous minister made the determination that an administrative review where he could work directly with the staff and with the councils of the municipalities involved would have been more productive.

The analysis of members of my staff now, when I spoke to them about this several months ago, was that given what in fact has taken place, it was probably the right decision to have made.

Mr B. Rae: This document states quite categorically that not all the evidence is available to the police or to those conducting the management review. This document also makes it clear that in their view the only way to get to the bottom of the issue, which is to say the established link between developers, municipal officials, municipal politicians and the development process is a commission. It refers directly to issues which I myself raised in the House last October 1988 with respect to the concentration of land and the impact that has on development. All these issues are clearly stated and set out in recommended terms of inquiry for a commission.

I want to ask the minister, why would he reject a commission when his own staff are telling him that it is the only way to get to the bottom of this problem; that the problem will not be dealt with by a police investigation, that it will not be dealt with by a management review, because the issues are more complex and the issues involved are different?

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: Why would he not recognize that in terms of the draft cabinet submission we have here?

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The options that were available to the previous minister were, as I indicated, threefold. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to all three of them. The previous minister examined all of the options, he examined the potential outcome of the various options and chose the procedure that he did.

All I can say to him once again is that even within the staff of my ministry today, the very gentleman who drafted that particular proposal has indicated that the facts have demonstrated that the minister’s decision was the proper one. I am not able to go back roughly about a year ago and review that decision once again. All I can say is things have worked appropriately based upon the decision that was made.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr B. Rae: That is what I want. I want to know what the Treasurer was telling the government until the Premier (Mr Peterson) pulled the plug on him. The Premier pulled the plug on him and on those discussions when he said it was unacceptable. I want to know -- and the people of Ontario are entitled to know -- what was the Treasurer bargaining about, what was his position, what has he been saying and what has he put on the table? Why should the future of Ontario’s tax system and what Ontario --

The Speaker: Thank you. There were four questions there, I think.

Hon Mr R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr Speaker, I think your count is correct.

The honourable member misrepresents the situation when he indicates that somehow or other --

Mr Wildman: Order, order.

Mr B. Rae: The people of Ontario are entitled to know what the Treasurer is going to spring on them some time in the future.

Hon Mr Scott: You’re not going anywhere on this one. Take up a new question.

Mr B. Rae: I know the Attorney General (Mr Scott) likes secret government; we know what he thinks of secret government. What I want to ask the Treasurer is why the people of Ontario are not entitled to know what material he has had, what arguments he has been making, what background papers he has presented and his officials have presented in the discussions that took place up until April. Why do we not get that information?

Mr Farnan: Put it on the table, Treasurer.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon Mr Scott: What we need is a real socialist party in this province.

Hon R. F. Nixon: All of the tax reviews were under discussion. There are no favours involved. We sit around the table and talk about the economy and what is the matter with the New Democratic Party, things like that.

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier whom I would like to welcome back to Ontario, and I want to say to the Premier --

[Applause]

Mr Brandt: Well, I did not expect to extend that warm a welcome, but I do want to say to the Premier that in discussions that we had in the House yesterday with respect to the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party, it appears in fact that the Treasurer of this province agrees that the 13.5 per cent manufacturers’ sales tax is outdated and must go in its current form.

It also appears that the Treasurer of Ontario, being the clear-thinking individual that he is, recognizes full well that there can be some considerable improvement made to the proposed nine per cent goods and services tax. Those two facts being before us, and having been debated in this House yesterday, I wonder if the Premier would share with the House under what set of circumstances would the province of Ontario -- and I would prefer that this question not be referred to the Treasurer, whom we heard from yesterday on this question -- consider some form of co-operative program with respect to these proposed tax adjustments at the federal level.

Hon Mr Peterson: First of all, let me thank my honourable friend for his very warm welcome back to the House, and I did miss him; I want him to know that. Let me welcome him into the leadership of his own party. I understand he joined the race when I was away. You just never know what mischief will overtake this place when I am away.

That being said, let me just say to my honourable friend that he asked a hypothetical question, and I want to say that it is extremely difficult to answer given the kind of presentation and the deportment of the federal government in this matter. He referred to the 13.5 per cent manufacturers’ sales tax, which he said is unacceptable. The federal government has called that the silent killer of jobs. The member recalls that?

Mr Brandt: Yes.

Hon Mr Peterson: Why would someone who feels that strongly about it have raised the tax from nine per cent, when they came in, to 13.5 per cent now? If the member was looking at that objectively, and I know he does, would he not wonder about the sincerity of a government that attacked its own policy that it raised some 50 per cent in its own tenure? So it is very difficult to know what is the real basis the federal government is operating on.

They also talk about the inflationary aspects of that tax. Most people do not agree with their assessment. They are predicting no response in terms of wages or prices throughout the community. We do not agree with those analyses.

So I tell my honourable friend it is extremely difficult to take what they are saying at, shall we say, face value in this entire matter.

Mr Brandt: Let me dissuade the Premier from any apprehensions he might have with respect to leadership aspirations. On the part of the interim leader of the Conservative Party, I am not a candidate. I have made that very clear. The Premier can rest a little more lightly at night as a result of that.

Secondly, may I say with respect to my supplementary, and I mean this with a great deal of sincerity, that it is easy to be against things --

Hon Mr Bradley: Yep, you know all about that.

Mr Brandt: -- and we understand that there is virtual unanimity at the federal level.

Hon Mr Bradley: Well, you know all about that.

Mr Brandt: I wish the Minister of the Environment would restrain himself. I will be back to him with my next question. I will be there shortly; he should just be calm.

The Speaker: Order. We have almost taken up the time of a member’s statement, so let’s finish this one before we get to the next one.

Mr Brandt: I am moving as quickly as I can, but it is difficult at times.

I want to say to the Premier that he, in fact, as the leader of the province of Ontario and as the first minister of this jurisdiction --

[Applause]

Mr Brandt: I would ask that government members please not take up my time with their applause -- has a responsibility to come forward with an alternative in the interests of Ontario and in the interests of this country. If he does not like the goods and services tax and the nine per cent proposed, and if in fact he agrees that the 13.5 per cent is an antiquated tax and should go, what does he propose as an alternative?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is no wonder he is not running for leader. I can understand on the basis of his last two questions. He has just changed his mind again.

I can say that my honourable friend would assume we caused the problems in Ottawa, which we did not. He should just look at the fiscal policy in Ottawa since they assumed office on 4 September 1984. They have done nothing appreciably with the deficit. This Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has dealt with the deficit in this province. He has shown a consistency of purpose. He does not change his mind just when an election comes along.

We have given the federal government advice on interest rates. They choose not to take our advice on interest rates. I say to my honourable friend, they are the authors of their own misfortune in many respects. Had they taken the advice of this Treasurer on all fiscal matters, in terms of transfers, tax rates, capital gains tax and a lot of other things, I can tell members that the federal Minister of Finance in this country would be in a lot better shape than he is today. Any time that he would like this Treasurer and this government to take over and run the country, we are prepared to do that, because we are a lot better.

Mr Pope: Now there’s a good reason for a leadership campaign.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Pack deal. They get both of you.

Mr Pope: A new Liberal candidate.

Hon Mr Peterson: Let’s all go to Ottawa and we will do it right.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: I am glad to hear that the Premier of the province of Ontario has now thrown his hat into that Liberal leadership ring at the federal level.

Let me say to the Premier, he knows full well that expenditures in this province are virtually triple, on an annualized increase basis, those of the federal government in Ottawa. When the Premier talks about fiscal control, he inherited virtually no deficit in this province, and the federal government inherited a crippling deficit which it is still trying to deal with.

What is the Premier’s alternative? I believe he has a responsibility to state quite clearly what the province of Ontario would prefer in a co-operative undertaking with the federal government. What does the Premier suggest be done?

Hon Mr Peterson: I invite a debate on the quality of this minister of finance versus the federal Minister of Finance. I invite that debate because I can tell the member, he inherited a deficit of some $3.6 billion and we can look at it today. This is a person who has developed a budget that pays as we go, that is responsible in all respects. Sure, we have increased services, and one day the member stands up in this House and says we should spend more on this, and the other day he says we should have less taxation.

That is the joy of being in opposition; he can have it both ways. That is what he prefers to do. But I can tell him, the Treasurer has shown a consistency and a responsibility that the federal Minister of Finance has not shown. The federal Minister of Finance has changed his rationale almost every day on the goods and services tax.

He originally said it was not to balance the budget; now he is saying it is to balance the budget. It is very difficult for provincial ministers of finance, all of them, who have found this new approach unacceptable, every single one of them, to deal with a government that changes its ideas and its rationale every single day. This is a government that is responsible in all respects and will continue to exercise its responsibility, but I will say to my honourable friend, unlike some of his --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. That seems like a fairly lengthy response. New question to the Minister of the Environment?

Mr Brandt: Yes, you anticipated the direction in which I was going, sir.

Hon Mr Elston: You told him.

Mr Brandt: I know that I told him, and I wanted the minister to be prepared.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I would like to suggest to the minister that there are some concerns in eastern Ontario that I was able to identify as a result of a trip I made there this fall. One of those concerns is with respect to the community of Beachburg.

I want to show the minister a sample of the water in Beachburg and the effluent that is contained in that water. This is the water that Beachburg residents are forced to drink every day.

Mr Kerrio: Go ahead, Andy.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Down the hatch.

An hon member: Don’t do it, Andy.

Mr Brandt: Since the minister is prepared to force the citizens of that community of Beach-burg to drink this water, I wonder if he is prepared to drink the water of Beachburg himself.

An hon member: You go first.

Mr Brandt: I send that over to the minister.

Some hon members: Drink, drink, drink, drink.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon Mr Bradley: Of course, I have no idea where the member for Sarnia gets anything that he sends across here, but I have my suspicions. I think what the member makes reference to, of course, is the amount of money that is being spent, a tremendous amount of money in the province of Ontario at the present time, on water and sewer projects, and other projects of this kind from one end of the province to the other, including eastern Ontario.

The member would want to know that my ministry is funding some 1,812 projects at the present time which are designed to improve and expand upon our province’s water systems. We have committed some $1 billion ongoing in financial assistance to ensure this work is completed in the coming years. This, of course, as the member would know, includes direct grants to municipalities for such things as water and sewer plants.

It includes improving private water and sewage systems, as he is well aware, and commissioning studies for the needs of different municipal systems through the Life-Lines project which we put into place, which his federal friends have not joined yet but which we have municipalities in the province involved in, and includes beaches improvement and provincial water and sewage initiatives.

Mr Brandt: Let the record show that the minister was not prepared to drink the water that he is forcing the residents to drink in that community.

Hon R. F. Nixon: He’s not thirsty.

Mr Brandt: That is exactly what he just did. I want to give him an unequivocal assurance that that water came from Beachburg and that that is the water the residents are forced to drink.

My question to the minister is very simple: In the community of Smiths Falls, I want the minister to know that twice over the course of this past year the hospital in Smiths Falls had to be closed down because the sewer system backed up, contaminating that particular building, forcing them to close the hospital and to cancel surgery -- I say to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) -- and disrupting operations there because of the unacceptable environmental conditions. What is the minister prepared to do to provide the money to that community? Since he is apparently funding thousands of communities, why not Smiths Falls?

Hon Mr Bradley: As the member is fully aware, having been the Minister of the Environment on one occasion -- that occasion, of course, when they were spending about $100 million less a year on water and sewage projects in the province of Ontario in terms of the direct grants, so he would well recall this situation. He knows that we go through the committee, which is a technical and scientific committee of the Ministry of Environment that evaluates all of the projects that come forward. In some cases, a number of municipalities proceed with those projects as they see fit. In other cases, they decide not to proceed.

I can tell the member that each and every one of them which puts forward such a proposal is evaluated carefully, and he has other colleagues in the Legislature who have had projects which have been approved. They have had difficulties and we have attempted to address those difficulties with tremendous amounts of money.

I mentioned some $1 billion in ongoing projects right across the province of Ontario, with about 400 of those projects going on in eastern Ontario at the present time. When they bring forward their proposals each year --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mr Brandt: My final supplementary is again to the minister. In spite of the fact that the minister indicates that there are a number of projects in eastern Ontario, the percentage of money that he has contributed and has committed to that part of the province is extremely low and unfair.

The community of Spencerville, as an example, for four years now has gone to the minister indicating a serious concern about leachate from an antiquated septic tank system which is contaminating the drinking water in that community. When is the minister prepared to make a commitment to some of these communities that have had to go to him on bended knee year after year to try to upgrade the systems that they have in their communities?

Hon Mr Bradley: I point out to the member, who has a very bad memory of these things and a bad memory of days gone by --

Mr Brandt: I have an excellent memory.

Hon Mr Bradley: -- that there are some 126 projects in various stages of completion in eastern Ontario at the present time, and in municipalities, for instance, outside Ottawa-Carleton, because I know he does not want to consider Ottawa-Carleton.

Our statistics, of course, clearly indicate that eastern Ontario is getting, in terms of population, for instance, more than its fair share in the province of Ontario. I can indicate to the member that the average project in eastern Ontario gets some 77 per cent of the project paid for. In other areas of the province that is not always the case.

Mr Wiseman: Oh, not in the rural areas.

Mr Sterling: Not in the region.

Hon Mr Bradley: In eastern Ontario, that in fact is the case, up to 85 per cent. Because a number of the communities are small, they get that kind of money.

I want to remind the member that projects such as Almonte, Richmond township, Russell township, Hagarty, Kingston township, Macksville, Wendover, Thurlow, Trenton, Tweed, Winchester --

The Speaker: That seems like a fairly --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I would remind all members that half the question period is gone with four questions.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Philip: I have a question of the Attorney General. I am sure the minister will recognize that under the present Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman in this province has fewer powers than in practically any other jurisdiction. I have a question concerning his bill which he introduced yesterday that restricts that jurisdiction still further.

Is it the Attorney General’s understanding that the bill he introduced yesterday excludes the Ombudsman from investigating any decision or administrative action of a public servant based on an order in council? Is that the intent of the bill?

Hon Mr Scott: No, it is not. While I am on my feet, I should explain that it is not the most restrictive ombudsman act in the world, as my friend says. It is the largest, most fully funded, most expansive government Ombudsman’s office in the western world.

Mr Philip: It is hard to understand how the minister could say that without a shovel. The Ombudsman, in his response to the Supreme Court case in Crown Trust Co clearly indicated that there was no attempt, contrary to the statement by the Attorney General yesterday in his statement on the bill, by the Ombudsman to investigate deliberations or proceedings of the cabinet. Does this bill in any way prohibit the Ombudsman from investigating decisions made under regulations which are orders in council? If so, why would he want to exclude 50 per cent of the present complaints that are launched with the Office of the Ombudsman?

Hon Mr Scott: None of that is what is happening at all. As the honourable member knows as well as anybody in the House, the Ombudsman Act excludes the Ombudsman’s power, and always has, to look into the proceedings of cabinet. A debate has existed for almost a decade about whether the proceedings of cabinet include simply the debate up to the decision and the decision, or the decision itself.

All previous ombudsmen, including Dr Hill, until the last year have taken the position that decisions of cabinet themselves cannot be reviewed by the Ombudsman. He changed his mind in the last year and a half of his office, and the purpose of this amendment is to add one word to clarify what everyone thought the law always was, which is that decisions of the executive council could not be reviewed by the Ombudsman.

There is no democratic government in the western world that, as the honourable member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) says, does not impose a political obligation to answer for decisions of cabinet. It is not an Ombudsman’s function. It is a political function discharged by the government of the day.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Premier. He will remember that the subject of the troubles of the Ontario Human Rights Commission were referred by resolution of this House to the standing committee on government agencies. This morning the Liberal members of that committee voted against hearing from any former or present employees of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This is like conducting the Dubin inquiry without calling Ben Johnson.

My question is this: Could the Premier tell this House and the people of Ontario if the stonewalling by the Liberal government members of that committee represents what his government stands for today in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think that the people of this province understand the committee system of this House. The committees are independent and the members make independent decisions.

Mrs Marland: I am not about to believe in Alice in Wonderland today and I do not think the people of Ontario will accept that answer. The Premier appointed Raj Anand as the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. At that point, the Premier extolled his virtues, his abilities and his talents. My question today is, does the Premier not agree that it would be to the benefit of human rights and the human rights movement in this province to hear today from Raj Anand, who has served as chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

Hon Mr Peterson: I would assume the honourable member believes in the democratic system and I would assume the honourable member believes in the committee system of this House. I have every faith in the process to deal with those matters. I am not the one who makes those decisions. The member is so very persuasive, I am surprised she cannot persuade people to follow her lead in these matters.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Mr Dietsch: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. A great number of my constituents have expressed a great deal of concern to me regarding the congestion of the Queen Elizabeth Way. The volume of traffic is becoming heavier and heavier en route from St Catharines to Toronto. I would like the minister to give this House an update on the plans for its expansion, if he would.

Hon Mr Wrye: I know my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock has spoken with me about this important roadway on a number of occasions and I suppose, having chatted with him as recently as yesterday and heard the length of time it took him to get from St Catharines to Toronto, a period of time which I found a little astounding, I can understand the reason for the question today.

The member would want to know that there are plans for the expansion of the QEW from its present four lanes to six from Hamilton to St Catharines, that those plans are on the books now and that the work will begin shortly and will continue over the next six or seven years. The member would also want to know, and so would his constituents and those most involved in travelling that corridor, that in regard to the very first information asking for a bridge expansion widening, the contract for that project is now being advertised and that will be the very first stage of this important new project.

Mr Dietsch: In my view, we must do something now to wrestle with the problems of increasing traffic travel time. I think we should review such things as restricting the number of people travelling in cars, increasing car pooling, the number of lane changes, the limiting of lane usage, as they do in other North American centres, and extending rapid transit such as GO Transit. I would like to have the minister’s comments on those views.

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable member raises a number of important possibilities, and I have asked my staff to accelerate some work that they were doing particularly looking at restricted driving lanes for high volumes of individuals and what we can do to encourage more people to use some of the excellent car pooling parking facilities that we have where individual drivers can come together in outlying areas, park their cars and go in in a single vehicle.

Indeed, we are doing everything in terms of public transit to continue the expansion of the GO Transit system onward to Hamilton so that some time in the mid-1990s we can have as full a service as possible to that community which will serve not only Burlington and Hamilton, but also people in the Niagara Peninsula and will serve them much better than we are able to do today.

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware of the incredibly deep recession that my community Windsor went through in the early 1980s. He should also be aware that in the last couple of months, the following companies have announced plant closures: Charles Laue, Gibson, Dominion Forge, Central Stampings with some layoffs, Fabco, International Playing Card and Tums. As well, the Ford Motor Co has announced that there is the likelihood that one of its engine plants will close, throwing 1,000 people out of work, and Chrysler Canada’s full-size van plant has announced the indefinite layoff of 400 employees.

There are a lot of people in my community who are concerned that we are heading in exactly the same direction that we were in the late 1970s, into a deep recession in my community. I would like to ask the Premier what specifically he is prepared to do to help diversify our economy in Windsor so that it is not so reliant on the auto industry.

Hon Mr Peterson: I certainly understand the concerns expressed by my honourable friend. As he knows, there are a variety of projects for growth for next year in Ontario. The operating premise right now is about two per cent, which is not recessionary, although admittedly, as my honourable friend says, it will have different effects on different parts of the province.

The government has been concerned about some of the structural problems in the province and one indeed is, shall we say, an overreliance on the automotive industry, and that particularly occurs in my honourable friend’s area. We have, as he knows, made a great number of investments through the Premier’s Council in a number of structural questions over the last two or three years, particularly in the areas of research and development, in areas that we think are going to have an effect on this province in the long term.

That being said -- my honourable friend asked me about Windsor; he could ask me about other communities that in some senses are more vulnerable -- my honourable friend will be aware as well that certain industries are more vulnerable under the new trading arrangements than others are, which is a great source of concern to us. But, on balance, the job situation has been up very substantially this year and we project again that it will grow next year. That does not deny for a minute that there will be certain areas of problems.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The latest statistics indicate that over 10,000 people are collecting unemployment insurance in the Windsor community, and there are nearly 2,000 people in the city of Windsor who are employables who are collecting welfare. We have a very high unemployment rate. The Premier’s home community of London has the lowest unemployment rate for an urban area in all of Canada.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically whether he thinks it is fair that the Windsor-Essex area has 885 provincial civil servants working and living in that area,

whereas the Premier’s community, with the lowest unemployment and a well-diversified economy, has nearly 4,000 civil service jobs. I could run through other inequities that exist: Wellington, with nearly 2,000, Hamilton-Wentworth with nearly 3,000, and my community has fewer than 1,000 provincial civil service jobs. Is it not about time that the Premier responded to the requests from my community that we get our fair share so that the government can help diversify Windsor’s economy?

Hon Mr Peterson: I look back the last two or three years -- and I am not arguing for a minute that we cannot do a lot better -- but I look at the enormous range of projects that have gone into the Windsor area in the last two or three years under the remarkable leadership of the Minister of Transportation and others who have taken a very positive view in this matter.

We have worked very closely with the mayor on this matter, I can tell my honourable friend; not just this mayor but the previous mayor, who was a close ally of the member’s until he threw him out and who has told me that they have never seen such co-operation from Queen’s Park in their projects. We will continue to do that.

We recognize that the general prosperity in the province is not evenly distributed. I do not think my friend is accurate when he compares it to London. He could compare it to Hamilton, which I think has one of the best records in the province right now, or to the Toronto area. I am not suggesting there is an even number of public servants in each area. We have been trying to even out those opportunities. Look at the remarkable things that have gone on in northern Ontario and in many other communities in southwestern Ontario.

The member has every right to stand up in this House and draw attention to his particular community, but I say to my honourable friend, if he would look at the overall level of prosperity, it is pretty good. We will certainly try to respond in specific cases wherever we can and whenever there are things we can do that are reasonable in the circumstances.

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Solicitor General and deals with one of the recommendations he made last week, specifically the suggestion of further restrictions on police officers in this province with respect to their ability to fire their weapons. Some police officers are suggesting that this proposal is really questioning the ability of police officers across Ontario to exercise proper judgement. I wonder if the minister would explain to the House why he feels it is necessary to bring in these kinds of additional controls.

Hon Mr Offer: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think it is important to realize that the recommendations of the Lewis task force report called upon our government to request or petition the federal government to amend subsection 25(4) of the Canadian Criminal Code. Currently, that particular subsection states that a police officer may discharge a firearm in the apprehension of an individual. The task force report said that the Criminal Code ought to be amended to say that discharge of a firearm should be permitted only where there is an immediate threat of death or danger to the officer or the public.

We have agreed with the thrust of the recommendation of the task force report, and in consultation with the Attorney General (Mr Scott), who will be petitioning the federal government, I will be asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code, not in the words of the task force report but rather in the words “where there are reasonable and probable grounds.” We believe that this will not only meet the thrust and the intent of the legislation, but also provide that degree of decision-making for the officer in the exercise of his function.

Mr Runciman: One has to be concerned about how police officers across this province are going to react to this kind of additional restriction. They already have restrictions on drawing their weapons and firing their weapons. Now they are going to have to consider the consequences, all in a split second, of course. I want to remind the minister of Constable Douglas Tribbling of the York Regional Police who, in 1984, entered a building where there was a suspected break-in and was shot five times, his gun still in the holster.

We are going to have police officers across this province facing those kinds of concerns because of the additional restrictions the minister and his government are placing on them.

Is the minister prepared to consider this kind of an initiative, the impact it is going to have on police and, ultimately, on public safety across this province?

Hon Mr Offer: Let me tell the member that since I have been the Solicitor General, since 2 August of this year, I have taken the time and the opportunity to discuss this particular task force report not only with the community at large, but also with representatives of police forces across this province. Let me tell the House that they are very much aware of the necessity of this type of amendment. They understand what this amendment is designed to accomplish, and I am very confident and optimistic about the response of police forces in this province.

WIFE ASSAULT

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues. I know that the minister has been travelling through the province recently to promote awareness of the issue of wife assault. She will be in Peterborough later today. The government has undertaken an extensive public awareness campaign, including very graphic TV and radio commercials.

However, occupancy rates in emergency shelters for women and children escaping from violence are very high. In my riding, from 1 July to 30 September this year, one of the two residences operated by the Young Women’s Christian Association was at 186 per cent of its capacity. There were 85 children involved over that time period.

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Adams: What is the minister doing to address this problem?

Hon Mrs Wilson: I want to thank the member for Peterborough for addressing the issue of wife assault and raising his concerns, and also raising the awareness of people across the province and in his riding that wife assault is indeed a crime. There is no excuse for wife assault. It is not a private matter. Each of us has a responsibility for preventing wife assault.

The government’s commitment is to a long-term wife assault prevention strategy, and it includes a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach. It is a strategy that I believe is very effective. It is a three-pronged approach: first, in the area of prevention and education, second, in the area of enhanced criminalization and justice services and, third, in the area of shelter and counselling services.

Wife assault is a vicious cycle of repeated and very often increasingly intensified assaults. If we are to break that cycle, we are going to have to change attitudes. Changing attitudes involves public education. Those television commercials are very graphic but, in fact, they portray wife assault as it really exists.

Mr Adams: I am grateful to the minister for responding to my question. For my supplementary I would ask this: Has the minister considered the benefits of establishing some kind of follow-up counselling service for victims of family violence who have exhausted their permitted length of stay in a shelter and their immediate access to specialized counselling?

Hon Mrs Wilson: For assaulted women, having a safe place to go is vital. Our new funding formula for shelters will assist communities to provide those safe havens. Victims of wife assault have been designated as a special priority for first access to local housing authority units and also to a proportion of new nonprofit housing units. In addition, we are placing emphasis on second-stage housing which will provide the transition from the time in the shelter to housing that they will have on a permanent basis. There are now seven such projects in the province.

Counselling services are provided through various contracts with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This year they have increased family counselling funding by more than 200 per cent, from some $2 million to more than $8 million this year alone. There are also other agencies within the community that, while they do not have a particular mandate for counselling, are providing that, in particular for children.

I believe that we have done a great deal but there is still a great deal to be done. I ask all members of the House to join with us in working, particularly during this month, on preventing wife assault in the province of Ontario.

NATIVE SUICIDE RATE

Mr Pouliot: My question is to the minister responsible for native affairs, in regard to yet another suicide. Last weekend in the small community of Kingfisher Lake, a 16-year-old youth hanged himself. In the northern communities north of Sioux Lookout, with a combined population of some 17,000 people, the native peoples have experienced some 40 suicides in the recent while, which averages between one and two a month, more than four times what the provincial average is. This calamity must cease. What emerges is the picture of an individual who is deprived, whose culture is shattered, who is confronted daily with poverty, unemployment, overcrowding and disease.

In view of the calamity, in view of the urgency of the situation, I am sure that the minister would share in our sorrow and wish to get to the bottom of this. Will he share with us what specific plans he has so that the lives of native people in northern Ontario will not have to result in a premature end? This is a problem for the minister’s soul.

Hon Mr Scott: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I know how seriously he takes this very important issue, as do I. He will recognize that the high native suicide rate is not simply a function of natives who live in northern Ontario, but is a function of native populations across the country. It is a tragedy and its origins may be the ones the honourable member describes. I am very conscious of it.

As the member knows, the native affairs directorate is a directorate, not a ministry, and does not deliver policies or programs to communities. But I have been working very closely with my colleagues the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), each of whom has a responsibility in this area and who has developed significant new programs at very considerable expense that are designed to focus on the mental health component of this serious question.

My honourable friend I think will be satisfied if he directs his question to them for details of those programs. However, if he wishes to phrase a supplemental I will do my best to begin to describe them for him.

Mr Pouliot: I am not going to ask the minister for self-government. The traditional picture of an Indian is one who endures great pain without crying out, endures frustration, keeps his emotions inside. The minister is right that the same problem has occurred in each and every province over the years in Canada.

People have taken the bull by the horns. They have established a task force in British Columbia, a task force in Saskatchewan, a task force in Manitoba to deal with a similar situation. I am asking the minister, at a reasonable cost, does he have the political will to go to the bottom of this affair? Will he commission a task force?

Hon Mr Scott: I have had occasion to work with a number of task forces in the past and I do not deny their utility. Certainly this government has instituted some. I do not think that a task force will teach us much that we do not know about this important and difficult social problem.

I want to emphasize to the honourable member that we take it seriously and both ministries co-operatively have funded, for example, Ojibway Tribal Family Services, which I believe serves in excess of 60 bands in northwestern Ontario and provides mental health services and other services that are designed to grapple with this very difficult kind of condition. The ministries also provide additional family service and children’s programs, young offender programs on the criminal side, in the northwest which are designed to focus on these serious questions.

The solutions are not short-term, but I want to assure the honourable member that the members of this government are directly concerned about the kinds of serious human questions he raises. Steps have been taken in the last three years that have never been taken before in Ontario to try and seriously address those questions. A mere inquiry is not going to advance the issue further.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Skills Development: The minister probably knows much better than his predecessor that much of rural eastern Ontario is served only by volunteer fire departments. There are no full-time fire departments in my riding and in many others throughout eastern Ontario, although the area is crossed by the Toronto-Montreal and Toronto-Ottawa rail corridors, Highway 401, Highway 417 and many others.

Can the minister assure the residents of rural eastern Ontario served by volunteer fire departments that his ministry will not refuse training funds on the grounds that volunteer fire departments are not full-time municipal employees?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry for his question and for his interest in the whole issue of fire protection in rural Ontario. He should know and he will know that the government of which I am a part has taken very important initiatives in the area of providing additional support to rural volunteer fire departments.

I can think of circumstances that I know in my county where, under the direction and leadership of the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith) when she was the Solicitor General, we provided encouragement and support for the office of the Ontario fire marshal to provide training for rural volunteer firefighters. It is my understanding that support is still in place and available to communities in the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr Villeneuve: Encouragement and dollars are a little different, and the dollars were not forthcoming. I am sorry to tell the minister that. His predecessor was a captive of the bureaucracy and I hope he will not be in the same rut as he was.

What sort of review has the minister conducted to determine why some volunteer fire departments were funded in the past by the Ministry of Skills Development and no longer are, and will the minister authorize funding for volunteer fire departments where there are not full-tuition employees to perform the very essential work we take for granted very often from our volunteer fire departments?

Hon Mr Conway: To my friend from Moose Creek, I simply want to reiterate that this government does recognize the important role the volunteer fire departments play across the province, and most especially in rural Ontario. I simply want to reiterate that we will continue to provide the support, but I repeat that the principal obligation there will fall on the office of the fire marshal, which office has, over the time we have been in office, provided very real encouragement and support to rural fire departments of a volunteer nature.

ATTENDANT CARE

Mr D. R. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is presently reviewing the health professions legislation review with a view to bringing in new legislation to license the members of qualified and regulated health professions.

Bunny Waechter is a resident of a housing co-operative that houses a large number of people who, like Bunny, are disabled. They are concerned that the health professions legislation review will have an adverse effect on the attendant care they receive from homemakers, nursing assistants and others in order to perform their daily routines. For example, homemakers and nursing assistants often need to administer injections, inhalations and enemas under the direction of a doctor or nurse as part of a disabled person’s daily routine.

Could the minister indicate to the members of the House what actions the ministry is taking to ensure that these individuals continue to receive the help necessary to remain independent.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in this very important area. He knows it is one of the goals of our government and of the Ministry of Health in particular to be supportive of programs that make it possible for individuals who have disabilities to achieve the optimum level of independence and to live in the community wherever possible.

I want to recognize as well the leadership of my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) as an excellent advocate on behalf of disabled persons in ensuring that all the policies of this government are responsive.

Our aim at the Ministry of Health is to improve the regulation of Ontario’s health professionals while at the same time maintaining quality of care, ensuring quality of care and enhancing public protection. These are the guiding principles as I approach the health professions legislation review, which he knows I have received.

The legislation I intend to introduce, hopefully this spring, will embody these principles and policies. I want to assure the member that they will respect the needs of disabled persons in Ontario.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I am delighted the minister has such a strong commitment to maintaining the independence of disabled persons in the province. Is the minister able at this time to indicate if the possibility of exemptions will take place and be included in the health professions legislation when it is introduced?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to have a chance to qualify and clarify the process. Our ministry officials have met with representatives of the Ontario Advisory Council for Disabled Persons as well as with medical, professional and consumer groups and so forth, and with the Ministry of Community and Social Services as well, as we develop our response to the health professions legislation review. We will continue to meet with the groups to ensure the appropriate legislation will be tabled that will meet the needs of disabled persons in Ontario.

We are exploring ways of enhancing the ability of disabled persons to obtain assistance as well as to be able to live as independently as possible in the community.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call the next order, I would like to inform the members that in the lower west gallery we have Darlene Marzari, member of the British Columbia Legislature and chairman of the standing committee on public accounts.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr McCague: I have a petition, signed by 438 constituents, to the Premier and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We further respectfully request the above-mentioned member of Parliament to stand and read this petition imploring every member of the House to study this law and to demand a copy of its implementation procedures manual, and to bravely reveal the contents of both law and implementation to his and her constituents, who may be able to intelligently take a personal stand on this issue as soon as possible.”

I do not necessarily endorse this, but I do understand the right of people to have these presented to the House.

The Speaker: With respect, I would like to draw the member’s attention to our new standing orders. You are allowed a brief time to explain it, not to read the whole thing directly. As you know, we have a new time limit on petitions. If the member has not read it, I am sure he will read it at breakfast tomorrow morning.

Mrs Fawcett: I have a petition from the people residing in my riding and the Quinte riding asking that the government refrain from further implementation of the French Language Services Act. I have attached my signature according to the standing orders and for no other reason.

Mr Eves: In order to save time, I have two petitions identically worded to the one introduced by the member for Simcoe West (Mr McCague), one signed by 33 constituents and the other signed by 55.

Mr Fleet: It is my duty to present a petition signed by 53 of my constituents, despite the fact that I am strongly and fundamentally in disagreement with the petition. The petition calls for the repeal of the French Language Services Act, 1986.

Mr Villeneuve: I have a similar petition as presented by my colleague the member for Simcoe West and I present it to this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

House in committee of the whole.

Consideration of Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

The First Deputy Chair: For the attention of members, you may recall that we had deferred to this time the taking of several votes on a variety of amendments that were proposed to this bill. Do we have unanimous consent to have one division?

Some hon members: No.

The committee divided on Mrs Caplan’s amendment to subsection 1(l), which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 90; nays 0.

The First Deputy Chair: The next item is a motion by Mr Eves.

Mr Eves: I would like to explain the previous vote. First, we asked that the vote be stacked last week and we have since satisfied ourselves that in effect the minister’s amendment does the same thing that I was attempting to do with this amendment, which I shall now withdraw.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Reville’s amendment to subsection 5(7), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 27; nays

Section 5 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Reville’s amendment to subsection 7(1), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 15; nays 75.

The committee divided on Mr Reville’s amendment to clause 7(3)(

a) and clause 7(3)(b), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 27; nays 63.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 7(7), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 13; nays

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 8(7), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 27; nays

Section 8 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 9(5), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 9 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 19(4), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 19(5), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 19(6), which was negatived on the same vote.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 19(7), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 19 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr Eves’s amendment to subsection 22(l), which was negatived on the same vote.

Section 22 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mrs Caplan’s amendment to subsection 43(3), which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 77; nays

Section 43, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mrs Caplan, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.

VETERINARIANS ACT, 1989

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of Bill 39,

An Act to revise the Veterinarians Act.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I wish to table, for second reading, a bill to revise the Veterinarians Act. The purpose of this bill is to make revisions to the existing Veterinarians Act to better protect the interests of the public with respect to veterinary medicine in Ontario.

Under the proposed new act, important requirements to protect the public and the rights of members of the veterinarian profession are: the Ontario Veterinary Association is continued as the College of Veterinarians in Ontario; provision for at least three and no more than five members of the council of the College of Veterinarians to be lay representatives; provision of an independent board to hear appeals made by the public or members in respect of decisions made by the complaints committee and appeals by members from decisions made by the registration and accreditation committees; provision for the making of regulations subject to the approval of cabinet to govern matters relating to the public interest, such as licensing and discipline; and provision for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay) to require the council of the College of Veterinarians to amend, make or revoke regulations.

I wish to make it clear that the Ontario Veterinary Association has conducted its affairs in a very responsible manner and that this legislation is not an indication that the association has not governed the activities of its members satisfactorily. However, the Ontario Veterinary Association is a self-governing profession and it is important that the legislation the association administers provide appropriate protection for the public and the members of the profession.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has worked with the Ontario Veterinary Association in the development of this new act. A ministry committee was appointed to deal with the matters pertaining to the development of this new legislation and to reach a consensus on the content of a draft act. In January of 1986 copies of the draft were distributed to all registered veterinarians in Ontario and to interested and affected individuals and organizations.

There were more than 125 written responses from organizations and individuals and numerous oral responses. Some of the organizations which met with the committee were: the Society of Ontario Veterinarians, the Ontario Institute of Agrologists, the Ontario branch of the Holstein Association of Canada, the Ontario Grain and Feed Dealers Association, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The committee is now satisfied that the proposed act addresses the significant concerns put forth by the public and members of the veterinarian profession.

I am confident that the proposed act will serve to better protect the public interest and the rights of members in the practice of veterinary medicine in Ontario. I urge the members of the House to give this bill quick passage.

Mr Reville: I need to find out from the minister whether this will have any effect on my favourite program, All Creatures Great and Small?

The Deputy Speaker: Any other comment, great or small?

Mr Villeneuve: Our party fully agrees with Bill 39. We have checked with the Ontario Veterinary Association and the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and our party is in full agreement with the upgrading via Bill 39 --

The Deputy Speaker: Is this question or comment on the minister’s statement?

Mr Villeneuve: This is two-minute debate. We have really no debate. We are in agreement with the bill and we will be supporting it.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to certainly comment to my friend across the way about the show All Creatures Great and Small and absolutely guarantee the member that this bill will have no effect on that fabulous program.

The Deputy Speaker: Would any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Wildman: On behalf of our caucus I want to say that we will be supporting Bill 39,

An Act to revise the Veterinarians Act. The Ontario Veterinary Association has co-operated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in developing legislation over the past 10 years and it will indeed enshrine and enhance the principles of responsible self-regulation by the veterinary profession. It has been a long time in coming. The first draft was published in January 1986. The bill received first reading in June 1989, three years later, and we have been waiting all these months now for the government to find the time to bring it before the House.

This bill is modelled on legislation covering other self-governing professions and it will ensure the protection of the rights of veterinarians in the event of actions taken by the governing body; in other words, there will be appeal procedures. We support the proposal that the Ontario Veterinary Association become the College of Veterinarians of Ontario with the responsibility for administering standards, ac-crediting veterinarians at veterinary clinics and handling public complaints and disciplining members.

Also, we note that decisions concerning registration and accreditation could be appealed to the health disciplines board and appeals regarding complaints could be heard by Divisional Court. Also, we support the view that at least three representatives on the council of the college would be lay representatives.

Essentially the bill will bring veterinarians into the same situation as other health care professionals in terms of how they govern their profession and determine that high standards are maintained. It is a piece of legislation that is certainly supported by the veterinarians in the province and by animal lovers and the agricultural community, I believe, as well. So we will be supporting the legislation.

Le Vice-Président : Merci. Questions et commentaires au sujet de la présentation du député ?

M. Reville : Mais non.

Le Vice-Présldent : Mais non. Dans ce cas-là, who else would like to participate in the debate in that case?

Mr Villeneuve: I guess I was a little premature in my original comments. We too as a party and I personally will be supporting the updating, particularly the upgrading, of this bill. The council of the college is to make the regulations and will be subject to the approval of the assembly here and the minister may advise the council and the college on the implementation of the act and the regulations. I guess that basically is legislation which the Ontario Veterinary Association has been looking for over a number of years. I have correspondence from them which fully endorses the regulation as set out in Bill 39 and we fully intend to support it and co-operate with the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, Mr Minister, would you like to wind up?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would just like to say to the House that I appreciate the support for Bill 39 from the member for Algoma and my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT, 1989

Mr Ramsay moved second reading of Bill 40,

An Act to repeal the Brucellosis Act.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I rise to present today for second reading a bill to repeal the Brucellosis Act. Since this bovine disease has been controlled and eradicated, the legislation we presently have on the books has become redundant.

Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that was once prevalent in cattle herds and caused infertility at a cost of millions of dollars to livestock producers in this province. In 1956, the Brucellosis Act was passed to promote and control the administration of the vaccine to female calves. This legislation provided the initial steps to controlling brucellosis in cattle. At that time, the federal government provided the vaccine while the province provided for its distribution and controlled the administration, supplies and records.

From the onset of brucellosis vaccination, approximately 5.5 million calves have been vaccinated in Ontario. In 1985, Ontario’s domestic cattle herds were declared brucellosis-free, and on 1 November 1985 all brucellosis control was assumed by Agriculture Canada. Therefore, the act became redundant. Under an agreement with Agriculture Canada, brucellosis has been placed on a list of reportable diseases under the Animal Disease and Protection Act. As well, Agriculture Canada continues to provide a national vaccination program to livestock owners.

I want to assure members of the House that this government, in co-operation with the federal government, is taking all reasonable precautions to ensure that Ontario and Canada remain brucellosis-free. The federal government is continuing to offer a calfhood vaccination program to domestic livestock owners and those producers who export female cattle to other countries, and through a variety of herd health programs, my ministry strives to protect and improve the health status of our livestock industry.

Mr Reville: Two weeks ago on All Creatures Great and Small, an outbreak of brucellosis swept through the herd and every one of the Aberdeen Angus cows miscarried. The young chap who was trying to start a cattle farm had to sell the farm and go to work in a factory. I am delighted that we are brucellosis-free today.

Mr Villeneuve: I understand that we are brucellosis-free, however, we still have some isolated cases of brucellosis. Would the minister be aware, firstly, of what percentage of the animals had to be destroyed or how many animals had to be destroyed in Ontario last year because of brucellosis, and secondly, what is the maximum amount that brucellosis can be prevalent in a province and still be considered brucellosis-free. We are brucellosis-free or designated as such, but we still have brucellosis.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am sorry my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville) is leaving. I appreciate that he watches TVOntario and that he is very aware of the disease brucellosis and how serious the disease can be when it is not under control.

To my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve), my understanding is that we are totally free in Ontario of brucellosis in cattle. There has been some report in the last couple of years in buffalo herds in Ontario and those herds were destroyed. Also, there is some brucellosis in Alberta in buffalo herds, but my knowledge is that there is no brucellosis in Ontario.

Mr Wildman: On behalf of our caucus, I would like to speak in favour of Bill 40,

An Act to repeal the Brucellosis Act. As has been indicated, this is essentially a housekeeping bill.

The provincial government has not paid veterinarians for brucellosis vaccine for some years and the federal government has established a program which is national in scope to deal with the brucellosis disease.

It has been stated that brucellosis among cattle has been eradicated in Ontario, and that is certainly welcome. I do want to point out though that this is not the first time this statement has been made. Before he left, the member for Niagara South (Mr Haggerty) reminded me that the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr Stewart, some time ago was encouraged to say that and subsequent, unfortunately, to that statement there was an outbreak of brucellosis in southern Ontario.

I think that obviously in Ontario we have to be on our guard to ensure that there is not another outbreak of this serious disease among cattle because of the terrible effect that it can have for the beef industry and the dairy industry in this province.

I have some comments and questions I would like to make at the committee stage, so I will leave it at that and, hopefully, we will deal with this briefly in committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments on the member’s statement? Sinon, le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

M. Villeneuve: Merci bien. Just a short comment in support of Bill 40. I will be looking into the facts and figures with Agriculture Canada and in particular with the health of animals directorate of Agriculture Canada. I personally think that we do have some reactors to brucellosis yet, and they show up whenever we are exporting to the United States. Many of our farmers are still vaccinating, at their own cost, against brucellosis, and I, at the committee stage, will certainly be looking deeper into exactly the amount and the numbers that have been prevalent here in Ontario.

I know once you get below a certain percentage of reactors, you wind up with a designation as brucellosis-free, and it is very fortunate that over the blood testing over the last number of years we have been able to eradicate or bring brucellosis under control to a minimum that we now qualify as a brucellosis-free province.

We have another disease very similar to brucellosis, known as leptospirosis. I know we have some problems in wild animals with that one, and it is at times to some degree difficult to tell the difference. It basically creates the same problems in animals. But certainly the beef and dairy industry are very important to this province, and I certainly hope that by going through and recognizing that we are brucellosis-free, we will always continue to keep our guard up against a very devastating bovine disease.

Le Vice-Président : Questions et commentaires au sujet de la présentation du député ?

Mr McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the statement made by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry who I see is very well aware of the situation with regard to brucellosis. I just wanted to say that when it is in committee I know that there are reactors, I know that when you export cattle that there are many that are left behind because of the high count that they have. I just wanted the minister to be aware that he should have some of these statistics when it gets into committee, whereby the export marketers of cattle will be familiar with what is taking place in Ontario today.

The Deputy Speaker: Any other questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, would the member wish to respond?

Mr Villeneuve: I thank my colleague from Simcoe East. There is also a rather intriguing situation where there are times when an animal will not be known as a reactor but will, at times, be known as questionable or doubtful; and we are not getting a positive reaction but it is not a negative reaction. I do not know where these animals fit into the statistics.

I know if they happened to wind up as questionable after the second blood test, normally the health of animals directorate recommends that they go for beef and certainly the beef has no problem with it, particularly if it is a matter of keeping our designation as brucellosis-free. So some of my questions in committee will be oriented around not only the positive reactors but those animals that have tested as questionable or doubtful, and I would like to know the numbers over the last period of time.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? Le député de Riverdale.

Mr Reville: I am concerned lest people misinterpret my rather light-hearted intervention. I had an opportunity in 1967 to work on a dairy farm north of Kingston where we were milking about 100 Holstein. We did in fact in those days vaccinate for brucellosis. It was a concern that any prudent dairy farmer would have because, of course, we were trying to generate our own stock as well. We had a bull. We also had a gentleman with a very lugubrious face who would attend at various times and artificially inseminate the cows.

Being a city boy, I was not always clear as to which cow should be inseminated and I think we inseminated a lot of the wrong cows because I could not quite understand the nature of this bulling thing that seems to go on out there in the field.

Knowing how hard dairy farmers and beef cattle farmers work and how much time they must spend at that, clearly brucellosis is no laughing matter and I just wanted to put that on the record lest anybody misinterpret my light-hearted earlier approach.

Mr Villeneuve: In reply to my colleague the member for Riverdale, I certainly have a great deal of respect for the agricultural critic of the New Democratic Party. He originally came from eastern Ontario, a great part of Ontario. He now represents a northern Ontario riding but he has limited past experience. I would suggest that the NDP, now that we know we have a resident connoisseur, could possibly consider changing the role of critic from the member for Algoma to the member for Riverdale.

Mr Reville: Thank you very much for that vote of confidence and should my colleague the member for Algoma ever flag in his duties, which I do not expect, I would be happy to do whatever humble

part I could.

Hon Mr Ramsey: Since it is the desire of the members to enter into committee of the whole, I could reserve that time for responding to inquiries the members may have.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT, 1989

Consideration of Bill 40,

An Act to repeal the Brucellosis Act.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I request permission of the House to bring in some assistants from the ministry in order to facilitate good responses to some of the technical questions that members may want to ask.

Agreed to.

The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon Mr Ramsay: No, I am quite happy to attempt to respond to questions my critics may have.

Mr Wildman: Just very briefly, perhaps the minister and the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food could provide the committee with the statistics of reactors, numbers of reactors and where exactly we are with brucellosis in this province. As I said, “eradicated” can mean a number of things. We are brucellosis-free in Ontario, and we welcome that, but we would like to know what information the ministry has on this. Also, can the ministry indicate and assure us that all payments under the agreements of veterinarians under the old act have, in fact. been completed?

Finally, some time ago OMAF told Ontario farm organizations that there would be a new program to deal with cattle or animal diseases that would be established in this province, and as far as I know, nothing has been heard of that since, so I would like to know what is happening in that regard.

Hon Mr Ramsey: The first thing, I think, that needs to be said is that Ontario has been officially declared brucellosis-free since 1985. We no longer appoint veterinarians to provide vaccine, ear tags or certificates as authorized under the act, because the federal government really takes that in charge now. All payments have been made under the act to veterinarians for services rendered before 1985 and any that was needed since then.

I am endeavouring to get the statistics for the member on reactors and some of that detailed information, and as soon as I have that I will be quite happy to report back to the House.

Mr Wildman: Again, I would just like to know what happened with the promise that there would be a new program on animal diseases.

Hon Mr Ramsey: I am not aware of this program that the member refers to.

The First Deputy Chair: Any other comments?

Mr Villeneuve: Would the minister or his officials know how many reactors, positive or questionable, we had in the last year to brucellosis? Would the minister have an idea of that?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I have to ask the member to repeat the question. I was unable to hear it. I am sorry.

Mr Villeneuve: I simply want to know, and I know we still have reactors both positive and questionable to brucellosis, would the minister know how many reactors we had in the province of Ontario last year?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I do not have that number. If we have any suspicious animals after testing, we retest, and we do not believe we have any reactors in Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: What percentage or what level of minimum reactors do we have to have prior to qualifying for a brucellosis-free designation?

Hon Mr Ramsey: I do not have that information. I would be quite happy to get that for the member.

Mr Villeneuve: Finally, I know that we still have some herds that go through the annual blood test to make sure that they keep their free listing status. Do we still perform the milk ring test to establish whether at the consumer level -- do we still have some reactors at that level? Are we still continuing that?

Hon Mr Ramsey: We are continuing testing. We test in many ways. The milk testing that the member refers to continues to this day. Also, we are continually testing blood samples that we obtain through veterinarians and abattoirs around the province, so we are constantly testing and are quite assured that this province is brucellosis-free.

Mr McLean: I have a question. Since we are brucellosis-free now, could the minister tell us what a farmer has to do to have an accredited herd or a herd where he can export cattle? What procedure does he go through to do that?

Hon Mr Ramsey: The Department of Agriculture will test the herd and then issue a certificate in due course, once the test has been successfully passed.

Mr McLean: If they are not acceptable and they do not pass the test, what number would there be that the minister would be aware of -- and I guess he is getting the information to find out how many there are that do not pass the test -- that cannot export cattle. I am in the dairy business, so I know about exporting a little bit. How many last year would there be that were tested and were unacceptable to export?

Hon Mr Ramsey: I would like to reiterate that what I said in my statement is that since 1984 the entire province of Ontario has been declared brucellosis-free. We are not picking up any positive tests since then.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there further comments or questions? Are we ready to proceed through the bill?

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Ramsay, the committee of the whole reported one bill without amendment.

Hon Mr Ward: I seek unanimous consent so that we can proceed with third reading of Bill 147.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT, 1989

Hon Mrs Caplan moved third reading of Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the minister have an opening statement?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I have agreed that the critics opposite can speak first and that I will wrap up.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

[Applause]

Mr Reville: One hand clapping always sounds a bit forlorn, does it not? That is from a different cultural tradition.

Seeing that I am the first speaker, maybe I could just briefly recite the legislative history of Bill 147. The bill was introduced in June 1988. The second reading debate proceeded somewhat intermittently in the fall, winter and spring of 1988-89. The public hearings were in August 1989, during the whole month of August, and the bill was reported back. It was sent back out for further public hearings which took place during four days at the end of October and the early part of November and returned to committee of the whole on 16 November, where further amendments were debated.

Those amendments have now been decided on in a number of divisions this very day and we are now in the third reading debate.

Bill 147,

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities, is a bill that nobody likes very much. It is true that Bill 147 did receive support from some quarters, but that support was lukewarm. The more common response to Bill 147 has been vigorous opposition. It is hard to imagine a public policy approach that is so awkward that it could attract the opposition of both the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Federation of Labour, but that was what Bill 147 managed to achieve.

I would like to stop at this point and note that in the gallery today are a number of officials from the Ministry of Health. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the hard work that they did during this 18-month period, through hearings that were not always as jocular as I like to be. There were a number of matters that were very contentious, and I would like to thank them for the alacrity with which they provided information and for hanging in to the bitter end, as it were.

To the extent that Bill 147 creates a procedure for quality assurance in health care facilities outside hospitals, the bill is eminently supportable. Quality assurance is indeed the wave of the future, and we here in Ontario should be riding that wave. I hope that this modest foray into the quality assured health care world will be successful. I hope that it will be so successful that the lessons learned from this can be applied across the entire health care field.

To the extent that Bill 147 creates a process by which health care planning may more accurately reflect health care needs, the bill is eminently supportable. What should be clear to anyone who has been paying even modest attention to our health care system is that it has grown somewhat like a weed, wherever it might take root, like the weed, without the benefit of very much in the way of planning or outcome evaluation. Perhaps that would always be the nature of a system that is both heavily political and heavily entrepreneurial.

Bill 147, when it was first introduced, was a relatively modest effort. I am not speaking about the government’s rhetoric, of course, which was, as usual, resounding and bombastic. I am talking about the actual impact that the bill was intended to have. It was designed to pick up about 20 existing health facilities of various kinds, mostly involving minor surgical procedures that could be done outside of hospital, and was projected to add, either through ministerial request or district health council needs assessment, about five new facilities in its first year; all in all, 25 independent health facilities and about $25 million.

That, in health finance, is modest. This is hard to believe, that $25 million is modest, but it is indeed modest. When one considers that one per cent of the health care expenditure in Ontario is around $140 million, $25 million is modest. It makes one think of the big trouble C. D. Howe got into when he said, “What’s a million?” in another place. He would, by today’s terms, be considered a piker.

When my amendment to

section 7 was accepted, at first unanimously and later by the government only, the bill cast its net much more widely. According to ministry figures, the net will now catch about $200 million in health care expenditure on an annualized basis, and that is by virtue of the way the

schedule of benefits is designed. Technical fees, also known as T fees, will become facility fees under this legislation, and those charging them will be grandfathered and will be entitled to apply for licensing. So Bill 147 grew very quickly. It started at 25 and now is maybe 1,800, that sort of number of operations.

I will make one brief comment on subsection 7(7) because it has been commented on at length on other occasions. It continues to be my strong belief that an attempt to develop a quality assurance approach to diagnostic services is very much in the public interest. I am aware of the anxieties that this change has caused for diagnostic imagers throughout the province, and those include not only radiologists but radiological technicians, respirologists, people expert in nuclear medicine, ultrasonographers and allied health care professionals.

I have asked for and received assurances from the minister that all the key stakeholders will indeed be heavily involved in the implementation of the legislation in respect of subsection 7(7). I hope that all those stakeholders will come to see the new approach as an opportunity to work at the leading edge of quality assurance in this country.

That said, I remain profoundly disappointed in the bill as a whole. The government has promised more than the bill can deliver. It was initially touted as a weapon in the free trade war, and this bill is a very wet noodle in that connection. Yes, it does express a preference for Canadian operators, but there is no monetary advantage that will be accorded Canadians. A preference for Canadian management appeared briefly in the bill, and just as quickly disappeared again. That said to me that I was right when I suggested the government was only kidding.

I think that goes, too, for the government’s interest, at least its expressed interest, in encouraging the nonprofit health care sector. Again, there is a modest, and for me meaningless, preference. It is clear to me and to other commentators that the real intention of the government is to reinforce and encourage the privatization of health care service delivery.

The Ontario Medical Association was worried about bargain basement medicine. The Ontario Public Services Employees Union was worried about low-ball medicine. I think those worries are real. The nursing home sector, for example, is 92 per cent or 93 per cent privately owned; that, in spite of a stated government preference for nonprofit ownership of nursing homes. We hear frequently from consumers that they are not satisfied with nursing home services. The Ontario Hospital Association thought the bill would produce high-volume, high-tech health care boutiques. I think so too. Who needs them?

If you read the bill, amendments and all, you cannot escape feeling certain that the bill has almost nothing to do with community health. Yes, independent health facilities will be located outside hospitals, but community health is a lot more than geographical in its concept. Community health requires community relevance and community accountability.

If the government had been really interested in community health, and had the minister meant it when she said she wanted to expand community health services and opportunities, why did the government and the minister resist putting into the bill structures and a philosophy that would have enhanced the development of community health opportunities? I have to reject out of hand the claim that the involvement of district health councils will ensure relevance and accountability.

Let’s look at how district health councils are chosen. Let’s look at the resources they have available. Let’s look at the record of district health councils when it comes to outreach and consultation. Let’s look at what the people do who serve on district health councils. It is my view that ordering council appointments that result in appointing people of the highest socioeconomic groupings will not do the kind of community outreach and accountability job that we need to get done.

I do not blame the people for not being able to do it, any more than you can blame somebody for being representative of one group and not of another, but clearly, district health councils do not now represent a cross-section of any community that I can imagine.

I fear that, so far from encouraging the development of grass-roots, community-specific responses to health needs, the bill may actually discourage them.

The Choice in Health Clinic is the prime example. It was established as a community response to the failure of government to provide access to abortion services for the women of this province, close to home or otherwise. The Choice in Health Clinic provides abortion services to 2,000 women annually, yet the grandfathering clause in Bill 147 excludes the Choice in Health Clinic.

Likewise, the Toronto Birth Centre is a community response to the interest that more and more parents have in having their children born in a more friendly, less medical environment. For 10 years, the government of Ontario has sandbagged the Toronto Birth Centre, first for philosophical reasons and later for bureaucratic ones. The grandfather clause also excludes the Toronto Birth Centre Inc. Maybe there will be a proposal call for birthing centres and maybe there will not. Maybe the Toronto Birth Centre Inc will be successful in responding to a proposal call and maybe it will not.

The effect, however, is that government has managed to frustrate the community will, both in deed and in legislation, over these years. I tried in three different ways to ensure that the Toronto Birth Centre Inc and the Choice in Health Clinic would not be victims of Bill 147, and, of course, the government rejected all three approaches. That says to me that community innovation and community responsibility is not worth much to this government.

We New Democrats will be voting against Bill 147. Clearly, we will be watching with interest the government’s performance as Bill 147 is implemented, and we are looking forward to the first annual report that will be required by the legislation. In the meantime, we shall continue to press for real community alternatives, real health promotion and real disease prevention in this province.

Mr Eves: I wish to get a few comments on the record with respect to third reading of Bill 147. I will not be lengthy this afternoon because I have been lengthy on other occasions and I have had ample opportunity, as have other members, to have some input in second reading debate -- the committee stage of this bill took many weeks and, of course, we have had committee of the whole House as well -- before third reading debate today.

But I do want to put on the record some concerns that I have and my party has with respect to Bill 147. I also would like to put on the record -- and I do not normally do this, but I think - in this instance, this particular association has not had an opportunity perhaps to be heard that it should have had overall -- I am speaking of the Ontario Association of Radiologists.

Before I start my final remarks, I would like to read at least in part, and if the Speaker permits, in whole, a letter of this very date, 22 November 1989, addressed to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and signed by the vice-president of the Ontario Association of Radiologists, Dr Tim Richardson:

“Dear Madam Minister:

“I was interested to listen to the proceedings of the committee of the whole concerning Bill 147 last Thursday.” That would have been 16 November. “As I was present personally at the Legislature I was able to listen to the discussions between you and the Health critics of the opposition parties.

“I was dismayed to hear you make two statements in particular after all the additional information you received when amendment 7 went back to the committee of social development. In particular, once again you stated, ‘What we have heard is that there is some voluntary peer review program.’ As I stated in our brief from the Ontario Association of Radiology and as was stated by many other radiologists as well as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the peer review program is not voluntary but indeed is mandatory.

As we stated and as the College of Physicians and Surgeons admitted, we believe that this mandatory peer review program, along with the HARP Act, are pieces of legislation which could be expanded upon without Bill 147 to assure quality control.

“Several minutes later you stated, ‘They (CPSO) pointed out to me that specifically they were concerned about the fact that cardiac catheterizations, a procedure normally done in hospitals with the kind of quality assurance programs that are provided in hospitals, are taking place in community-based facilities. They were concerned about that.’ This is a false statement. All cardiac catheterizations in Ontario are done in hospitals and none are in out-of-hospital community-based facilities.

“I trust this letter will serve to correct the inaccuracies of your statement last Thursday.

“Yours truly, Tim Richardson.”

I just wanted to get that on the record because I really think that the radiologists are one group that has been somewhat unfairly dealt with, in my opinion, with respect to Bill 147. Initially they were told, not only verbally but in writing no less, by officials from the Ministry of Health that they need not appear at Bill 147 hearings because, rest assured, the government had absolutely no intention of ever including them in Bill 147.

Then, lo and behold, the government accepted the amendment of the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville) with respect to subsection 7(7) and the radiologists were included. Then we went through the very unusual step of sending the bill out to committee so the people who were told that this bill would never affect them had the opportunity to defend themselves, because now they were included.

I would like to believe that when we went back to committee, this was a proceeding that everybody was listening to with an open mind and would actually maybe consider not accepting the member for Riverdale’s amendment. But having sat through the committee proceedings at all stages, I cannot help but believe that the government’s attitude all along was, “We’ll go through the window-dressing of allowing the radiologists to come in, but don’t confuse us with the facts because our minds are already made up and we’re going to shove this sucker down their throats whether they like it or whether they don’t.” That is exactly what happened.

During those proceedings, when the radiologists had four days to attend, 30 and 31 October, 6 and 7 November, during those four days on at least one occasion that I am certain of the executive director of the health insurance division, Dr MacMillan, admitted, when I asked him the question very directly whether this type of quality control for radiology clinics had to be included in Bill 147 or whether it was possible to do it outside of the parameters of Bill 147 along the lines of the eight-point plan suggested by the radiology association, he said, in his opinion, it could be done either way, inside or outside Bill 147.

I agree with him. I think that is a very honest and direct statement. For the life of me, I do not know why we have to proceed this way. Proceeding without a substantial part of the medical profession’s co-operation I think is only inviting trouble in terms of morale in our health care system in the province.

Having got those comments out of the way, I would like to deal in a much more general sense with Bill 147 and explain how I think it started out and where it ended up today. How it started out is this bill right here. This was a bill of 30 pages in length, with 36 sections. If you listen to the officials from the Ministry of Health, and I have no reason to doubt what they say, they spent a great deal of time, months, even years, preparing this piece of legislation.

Supposedly, at least I would like to hope, if they spent that much time preparing such a significant piece of legislation, they would have got some public input and they would have got especially some input on the health field from all kinds of health care professionals and providers before even drafting the first draft of the bill.

Initially, the bill was heralded as a bill that was going to provide an expansion of community-based health facilities throughout the province. I do not think that we have been through this before, I do not think there is any member of this Legislature who is not in favour of that basic principle and concept. That was fine. That is how we started out.

When this bill was introduced and we debated it on second reading, some of us on this side of the House found some rather draconian measures in the bill, things like inspection procedures and measures, things like no right to appeal from certain decisions, things like no written reasons for certain decisions. We found these fairly offensive.

After second reading debate, the ministry officials did go back and redraft the bill and they did solve or alleviate some of the concerns that were raised by members on this side of the House. What we found was a reprinted bill with some 22 amendments by the government between second reading debate and the bill appearing in the standing committee on social development of the Legislature.

Some of these problems, though, have still not been addressed, and I and my colleague the member for Riverdale were forced to introduce amendments at the committee stage and again at the committee of the whole House stage with respect to rights of appeal. There are some decisions, such as decisions made by the Minister of Health, which are not appealable, or if appealable, appealable only to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, not to an independent board and not to the Divisional Court, as pertains to other sections of the bill. We felt very strongly that these appeal rights and procedures should be consistent throughout the piece of legislation.

We also felt that seeing as how the ministry by its own admission only planned on expanding by five or six independent health facilities a year in the province, surely when they asked for proposals and applicants submitted applications, they should be entitled to written reasons why they were denied; if they were not successful applicants, why their applications were not accepted. The reason given by ministry officials was primarily that this would place an undue burden on the Ministry of Health.

When we are only talking about perhaps accepting five or six in a year, even assuming of course that there would be many more than one applicant for each proposal, I do not think that is an undue burden on the Ministry of Health.

I also think there is a basic concept of fairness here that we have to deal with. If people are going to make submissions on proposals requested by the government, the very least they have the right to expect are written reasons why their applications have been denied. They should have those automatically, without having to request them, and they should have them before they have to launch an appeal pr